RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive295

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 12 December 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>, <294>, <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>, (new)(back)


Midterm results[edit]

Anyone else up watching them? Looking tight at the moment but its still very early... --RWRW (talk) 01:13, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

No, I'll check them when they're counted and done. Biting my nails in suspense achieves nothing. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:17, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'm literally sitting watching the BBC coverage on the TV, with the New York Times election map on my laptop. *Sigh* I really need a life... --RWRW (talk) 01:19, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Heh. Not the only one. I needz sleep! — Dysk (contribs) 02:00, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Yep, especially the Beto/Cruz race. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 03:02, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

The House is gone Democratic. Ariel31459 (talk) 03:40, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

An interesting 2 years ahead, to be sure. (talk) 05:00, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
My state, Kansas, just elected a Democratic governor, but the House race in my district went GOP. But still, we dodged a massive bullet with Kris Kobach. Holy shit, he would've been a nightmare as governor. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 05:22, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
My state just reelected Ted Cruz. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 05:33, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Though the senate has stayed red, the House has gone to the Democrats. In my own state, a ballot question to turn back trans rights failed. Soon the House investigations will begin and we will see what it looks like under the rocks.Ariel31459 (talk) 14:16, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Rodger Wicker won my home state, sigh...TheDarkMaster2 (talk) 14:28, 7 November 2018 (UTC)TheDarkMaster2
I enjoyed this video of Trump's election day failures.Ariel31459 (talk) 15:34, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Jeff Sessions is out[edit]

Matthew "I Would Indict Hillary Clinton" Whitaker is in. Let the games begin. (talk) 23:22, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

FUCK!!! At least Sessions gave some semblance of a crap. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:48, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Matthew Whitaker looks like a giant thumb. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 00:45, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Funny how that works. The DC Court of Appeals is hearing a case that appears to be a direct challenge to Mueller's constitutional authority. It appears to be based on Prof. Calebresi's argument that under the Appointments Clause of the Constitution, an official overseeing the probe would have to be a “principal officer,” and thus would have to be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Too bad. If it goes up to SCOTUS, Kavanaugh tends to side in favor with the Executive (like on waterboarding, etc., unlike the racist states rights scumbags who oppose him). Arguments are set for December 14. Mueller might even have his report written by then. RobSmithIvanka 2024! 05:55, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Rod Rosenstein oversees the probe, was appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate. And the problem would be?Ariel31459 (talk) 14:42, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Rosenstein is out, seeing the AG is unrecused. In fact, rumour is Rosenstein may resign today, seeing he is Sessions hand-picked stooge. And Trump still has the de-classified notes of the coup plot up his sleeve.
What you liberal commies never comprehended was, the Mueller investigation was always about covering up Obama DOJ misconduct. Why do you think Mueller gave Comey immunity after Comey lied to Congress on national television, and then admitted to criminal leaking? RobSmithIvanka 2024! 18:27, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
lol, the Saturday night massacre is supposed to happen on Saturday, Nixon-but-dumber. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:35, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

@Ariel, I misunderstood your question. Rosenstein is not the Special Counsel. Rosenstein appointed the Special Counsel, not the president with Senate confirmation. The argument being made is, a flunky like Mueller doesn't have the broad subpeaona power to harass Roger Stone's friends trying to frame Roger Stone so they can try to frame Trump. Arguments before the Court of Appeals are Dec. 14. If SCOTUS reviews the case, Kavanaugh is likely to come down on the side of the President in overturning the existing Special Counsel regulations. RobSmithIvanka 2024! 18:39, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Currently, there is no Special Counsel or Independent Prosecutor statute - it's an internal DOJ regulation. It's been misused twice now, first when Deputy AG James Comey blackmailed AG John Ashcroft to recuse himself so they could go after Scooter Libby (see Valerie Plame affairWikipedia) and second when Comey and Rosenstein blackmailed Sessions so they could go after Trump. The Courts have had enough of this shit, especially after Obama DOJ FISA abuse, and the DOJ's partisan prosecution of Sen. Ted StevensWikipedia. RobSmithIvanka 2024! 18:48, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

And another issue: You can't have it both ways - criticize the Patriot Act and its Amendments, and then claim illegal domestic spying on Michael Cohen, Paul Manafort, Carter Page and others was justified. RobSmithIvanka 2024! 19:05, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I would like to respond Rob, but since nothing you said resembles the truth I have to think you are trolling for minnows.Ariel31459 (talk) 00:42, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Why am I not surprised that facts would confuse liberal leftwing communists? RobSmithIvanka 2024! 02:52, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
As opposed to conservative rightwing communists? --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 02:52, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
This one is too good: Liberal left-wing communists who have been calling Sessions a racist for 30 years organize protests in 900 cities to protest Sessions firing. RobSmithIvanka 2024! 03:01, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Why am I not surprised that you found comfort in a "lock-her-up" imbecile. Only 900 demonstrations against Trumpet coming up? Why that's nothing to worry about. Trump's list of allies grows thin. Now that he is a lame-duck, I presume many republicans will kiss the dear leader off. Ariel31459 (talk) 03:13, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Democrats protesting on behalf of the racist Attorney General tells you everything you need to know. RobSmithIvanka 2024! 03:20, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
wait...you are a communist?Ariel31459 (talk) 03:22, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Not what "lame duck" is supposed to mean. I mean, I guess the term has morphed as we've gotten more partisan, and it's a valid usage, but I really wish we had another term for "party of presidency doesn't control congress". ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:44, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
"opposition House," "opposition Senate" if it were just the Senate, and "opposition Congress" if it were both houses. RobSmithIvanka 2024! 03:03, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, yes. Technical minutiea to the point I was trying to make, but accurate. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 03:04, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Please send help[edit]

I don't know how they got here so quickly. They're smashing at my door now, and they've killed my guard dog. They're blowing cocaine powder into my AC unit to try and disorient me, but I've got blankets wrapped around my face. But they're so close to getting in. I smell them cooking delicious Mexican food, trying to lure me out. I never knew tacos and burritos could smell so good. But it won't work. I saw what they did to my neighbors, though I can't bring myself to speak of it. The vile beasts!
Now they've stopped banging at my doors and windows. "Let us in, amigo!" they shout. "We're not gonna hurt you!" I reply that I would sooner die. I see a brown man leer at me through my barred window. "We can make that happen if you want it so bad, amigo," he snarls.
It all started when the migrant caravan headed north. I don't know how they got here so quickly! Inhuman speed! I only know that the GOP could have kept these horrible monsters away from me. Why didn't I vote Republican? My God! Why didn't I vote Republican?
It was good knowing all of you, but I'm afraid I might never again post on this website. We were wrong to oppose Trump, so damn wrong! My God, why didn't I vote Republican?
Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 21:01, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

This lucky one died, the rest of us must suffer 2019. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:16, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
I always get this wry smile when I see people encouraging illegal immigration as if they're not enabling the many inhumanities that happen to these people as they make their way to the US. *shrugs* (talk) 22:57, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
I’m very against illegal immigration, but I also find the breathless fearmongering about that stupid caravan kinda hilarious. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 23:05, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Good, then we agree. :) (talk) 23:07, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
While I am in favor of more sensible immigration laws, we still have to have border laws. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:11, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
I also want more sensible immigration laws. U.S. immigration laws are going too far. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 00:50, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
This is obviously fake, If it isn't Then I don't know what to say.TheDarkMaster2 (talk) 01:42, 9 November 2018 (UTC)TheDarkMaster2
This may easily be your best comment ever. xD (talk) 02:08, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
You got me to laugh out loud. Well done. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 02:12, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

But on a more serious note, what is going to happen when large group of illegal immigrants meet large company of Trump's Troops on the border? Can the border guards just shoot people as they cross or is it going to be a mass beat-down followed by an interminate time in an internment camp until they get deported back to Nicaragua? — Dysk (contribs) 15:10, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

It probably won't be that violent. I doubt the migrants will be looking for a fight, and Border Patrol will be perfectly happy to shoo them into the trucks without a fuss. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 17:17, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
As for border guards shooting illegals, only if they are violent and or resist arrest. Resisting arrest will get you shot or killed. Same applies if you go to the border even just armed with a hunting knife.

On a tactical note:

It would be insanely stupid to attempt to cross a border not only being unarmed but, facing large forces of police. Why enter a fight you cannot win? From a purely tactical perspective. Emergency Alert System --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:52, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

A YouTube comment I made yesterday[edit]

I looked up videos against creationism and the one I watched was an interview with Richard Dawkins. I commented that I don't like him as a person but I respect him as a scientist. A person actually accused me of being anti-intellectual and anti-science because I don't like Dawkins as a person.

Just because you don't respect someone in one aspect does not mean you don't respect in another aspect. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:18, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Youtube comments are Youtube comments. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 00:51, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Well that's stupid. There is a difference between personal and professional respect. Personal respect is how you view the person in general, their personality, likes, and dislikes. Professional respect tends to deal with their skill set and how knowledgeable they are in their field. I honestly respect Dawkins professionally, but loath his personal views, or at least how he presents them. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 04:35, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
I find Richard Dawkins a bit annoying at times I'm not gonna lie. Mí má kȍhà hńg gǀȕì ō ǁȁhìn-ā ō hȁ ō gǀè gù ǀxūúnnu. (talk) 06:16, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
At That Funny Little Wiki Over Yonder, I was always amused by the longstanding drama over whether his appearance on the South Park cartoon should be mentioned in his article. It got to the point where a big red notice was added to the talk page, warning editors not to add the fact, and saying that the topic had been done to death. The cartoon itself was pretty clueless, about the only thing they got right about him as a character was that he was an evangelical atheist. It struck me as failing to notice the low hanging fruit. The God Delusion is one of the least convincing polemics ever made. By the end, you'll be wondering what believers ever did to deserve that. I still admire him for sticking up for E. O. Wilson, though. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 03:53, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
To be honest, I don't even know that I like him as a scientist. The last actual paper he wrote was in 1980(as an aside, does anyone know how to exclude books and/or pdfs from non-profits from google scholar searches? It's getting pretty cluttered these days). He's become a science communicator/educator, and his very public bad opinions really do detract from that role. You know, because of conflation of actual expertise and ultracrepidarian commenting. It makes sense that people backlashed you for suggesting he's got flaws. Skepticism and atheism as movements have become kinda... damaged? We've got some authoritarian and cultish problems here and there. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:41, 9 November 2018 (UTC)


I'm hearing about the "Blexit" movement. Apparently, it's a movement, contributed by Kayne West, to convince black voters to be Republican. However, there's stranger things I've gather from the website. The website links to an article about how "white lives matter" and jabs at liberals and democrats being racist. It's all amusing although extremely manipulative. How much do you think this will affect the election?—(((CheeseburgerFace))) Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 03:24, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

"Black people have voted for Democrats their whole life, they’re still poor" - Charles Barkley. From an outsiders point, it certainly looks to me like black people are starting to move away from the Democrats. Whether 'Blexit' will be significant enough to have a big impact on this election though I very much doubt. --RWRW (talk) 09:26, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
And black people in Redstates tend to be the poorest. Go figure. Miserly Nubian (talk) 04:03, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
It won't matter much because black people aren't particularly gullible or stupid. Dumb "stay home" propaganda campaigns of this sort have a long and repeated history with conservative movements, be it dixiecrats or 1980s onward republicans. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:42, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
It's not a "stay home" campaign though, it's a "vote Trump" campaign. (talk) 18:10, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Twice as bad? — Dysk (contribs) 18:20, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Go back to Africa was an easy way out of oppression. Later African Americans realized that they adopted American culture to go back. For Blexit, it is indeed a unadmitted black pro-Trump movement. At least the Go Back to Africa movment was explicit with it's intentions, even by its name. Blexit on the other hand, is just a pun on Brexit. For no reason other than to be a pun.—(((CheeseburgerFace))) Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 01:03, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be "blaxit"?
But in seriousness, the Democrats have indeed taken black people for granted, but the Republicans haven't been able to capitalize on this simply because they'd rather get the racist old guy vote instead. Black people should instead vote Green or Libertarian if they otherwise wouldn't have voted, if for no other reason to let the two parties know that their votes actually are in the millions and they are up for grabs. CoryUsar (talk) 05:24, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Sounds like Frank Luntz is out of a job, now that we're quite capable of garbage marketing bad rhetoric to ourselves. Democrats and republicans think so little of their base that they message memetic and worry about the substance of the message second. And a vote outside of Dem or Rep is wasted, because it works. It's honestly the time for a third party, but the only people pushing for it are pie in the sky or cash-out fakers, and that can't beat the machine. On the bright side, maybe Luntz is actually out of a job. What a time to be alive.Gol Sarnitt (talk) 06:08, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
I hate people who claim they believe in democrasy yet say voting third party is a wasted vote. Look the only wasted vote is when you don't vote(Like a lot of black people did in the 2016 election)TheDarkMaster2 (talk) 14:24, 5 November 2018 (UTC)TheDarkMaster2
I disagree. In the UK lots of centre-left candidates stood down in hotly contested races to form a 'progressive alliance' and it worked - it took a fair few seats from the Conservatives. I don't really like the Conservative Party but I can't see myself ever voting third party (even if we had a Libertarian Party) as it would ultimately help Labour--RWRW (talk) 16:19, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
At least you have third parties, unlike in the USTheDarkMaster2 (talk) 14:08, 6 November 2018 (UTC)TheDarkMaster2
It might not be as good as you think. One of the most common arguments against multi-Party systems is it results in unstable governments, especially in parliamentary democracies. The German coalition government seems to be going through some turbulence for instance.--RWRW (talk) 17:29, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

The Midterms[edit]

Any predictions? (talk) 19:18, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Every single seat will be filled with an awful sociopath; several of the sociopaths will displace other sociopaths. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:20, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
@Ikanreed HOW DID YOU KNOW THAT!?!?!?! In all seriousness though, the current midterms will likely end a a mixed bag. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:28, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Bingo! — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 23:32, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough. But to speak a bit in defense of politicians, a few of them are kind of alright. Orrin Hatch is a pretty funny guy. Though they're a dying breed I'm afraid. :/ (talk) 19:30, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Senate probably stays red, House probably flips. As for my local elections (Kansas-02) I have no idea. Our House race and our gubernatorial race are both toss-ups. The GOP seems pretty scared, because my town got a Trump rally (in the building I graduated highschool in, ugh!) and Pence showed up twice to fundraise. Not to mention all of the outside parties running scummy ads. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 19:45, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Predictions that will always be valid:

The 'pundits, predictors, analysts, journalists and writers of instant books' will use up a few real trees and cyber trees between them, and earn a few bob.
The (re)sellers of so-called collectable objects will try and make a large profit on some cheapo-cheapo items.
Five years hence the significance of the results will be seen quite differently with hindsight. Anna Livia (talk) 20:54, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
I dunno about that third point, the results of 2012 still seems pretty much the same now as it did then. The republicans really wanted a psycho and were sad when they didn't give themselves one, obama had dwindling support because he didn't want to take a left stance or really any stance besides a vague sense of reasonableness, but still had one of the most effective voting coalitions in recent history, and its remnants won it for him. Trump didn't add any color to that analysis, retroactively. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:00, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I feel like these midterms are more important than the mood here would suggest. The USA is generally a morally bankrupt, or even sinister force in their dealings around the world. They are, however, a very free nation internally. We need at least one superpower nominally committed to democracy. The yanks are now on the path to true autocracy and anyone who discounts this outright is fooling themselves. If the repubs retain the house and feel like their anti-human-rights rhetoric was a big part of it ... It doesn't bear thinking about. MunX (talk) 05:13, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I got a prediction, the republicans will win Mississippi and a lot of other states, despite the democrats using a recent shooting to try and look woke, cause we all know censoring Gab will prevent further shooting rightTheDarkMaster2 (talk) 13:30, 3 November 2018 (UTC)TheDarkMaster2
More likely: House flips, Trump spreads conspiracy theory that Dems hacked election, prompting more bombings and shootings by MAGAheads. - Millennium Scallion (talk) 16:38, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
The Republicans have already won many states, your comment hasn't aged well dude Plus the Dems started this conspiracy crud when they blamed russia for costing them the elction and not their terrible candidate nor her terrible policies.TheDarkMaster2 (talk) 14:03, 4 November 2018 (UTC)TheDarkMaster2
So, fake news? Millennium Scallion (talk) 17:11, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Let's imagine for a moment that the Good Lord decided to get off His ass and do something about Nancy Pelosi; who would Satan curse us with as leader of the Democrats? RobSmithMisogynist women made me loose 08:36, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Probably Farrakhan. (talk) 13:03, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Farrakhan, the leader of a black nationalist, conservative, pro-capitalist, pro-patriarchy, anti-Semitic, anti-LGBTQ organization who once praised Trump? Miserly Nubian (talk) 04:16, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
All those things are accurate and yet a considerable number of Democrats have strong ties to him. Remarkable, isn't it? (talk) 04:25, 12 November 42018 AQD (UTC)
Democrats take the House (probably narrowly) and Republicans hold senate (probably increasing majority). I haven't got much of a life so I'm planning on staying up to some disgusting time in the morning watching the results come through, I find it interesting and the BBC will probably provide coverage throughout the night. --RWRW (talk) 16:24, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

the house[edit]

is what we won. Oolon Colluphid. (talk) 13:27, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Pretty narrowly. And the Senate remains Red. The once-promised 'Blue Wave' is more of a ripple than anything else. Still the high voter turnout is a good thing for democracy. --RWRW (talk) 13:36, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
You act like winning the House is a good thing. Because getting nothing done and fucking over trump is more important then helping the american people, Partisanship for the win!TheDarkMaster2 (talk) 14:20, 7 November 2018 (UTC)TheDarkMaster2
You talk like the truth is irrelevant. Everything the House Intelligence Committee reported in the last two years was either a lie or shaded so far from the truth to be useless to the public. I don't want Trump fucked over. I want him to be revealed to posterity as the completely despicable human being that he is. Every serious American historian will be watching. Enjoy the show.Ariel31459 (talk) 16:04, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
I spy damage control by RWRW. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 17:18, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Ariel31459: Guy is a confirmed liar who'd go through the measures of thinly disguising himself through different IPs to try conjure outsider opinions agreeing with him. Just letting you know if you want to proceed. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 17:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Possibly, but it was the outcome I expected. Anyway the GOP lost less seats than the Dems did in the last midterms so it wasn't a disaster. --RWRW (talk) 17:54, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Just to be fair, I take every little win as much as I can because I really don't want one party controlling everything, especially not that party. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 17:57, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Lefty. Just to be accurate the democrats lost 13 seats in the last midterms, while Rs lost 28 this time.Ariel31459 (talk) 19:48, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
The Senate was never really in play. This year's map was just about the ugliest the Dems have ever gotten. Sure, there were things that would've been nice to have, like Beto O'Rourke or Stacey Abrams, but the House was the critical target. Meanwhile, the Dems lost fewer seats in the Senate than they really should have. OH, PA, WI, MI, and MT all voted for Trump, but the Dems successfully held those Senate seats. A net gain of two seats for the GOP really isn't that good, all things considered. The Dems also picked up 7 governorships, including my home state of Kansas and the Trump-voting states of Michigan and Wisconsin. At the end of the night, I think it was about as good of a midterm as the Dems could have hoped for. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 20:39, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
I've seen a bigger Blue Wave on the coast. you guys barely won the house. It's very early to be congratulating yourselfTheDarkMaster2 (talk) 12:20, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
The whole Blue Wave or Red Wave thing is stupid and at best hyped up voter turnout and at worst now has everyone fellating themselves, moving goal posts, and rolling out cognitive dissonance. The truth of the matter is that the seats up for election at the time gave heavy advantage to Republicans in the Senate and Democrats in the House. In terms of the Democratic victories, things got weird since many races that seemed to be slam dunks turned out to be losses and many races thought to be lost causes worked out. Beto O'Rourke beating Cruz, or literally any Texan beating Cruz, would have been cool but he never had that much of a chance - a 2.6% margin is to me at least impressive, but this was always about establishing credentials, image, and reputation for a 2020 run.
Democrats had a fine midterm, it was not utter victory over all foes but in the end things turned out right around the forecast. The House does control the power to impeach, but impeaching a President is very hard and unless that President has abysmal approval ratings it is political suicide (Clinton's impeachment backfired) to do that. This goes double for if there are no proven crimes or charges, unseating a President just because they are shitty and you know he's gone the ill deeds would cause a crisis if half the country still supports him and has issue with impeachment lacking formal issue.
Honestly, it sucks, but people need to remember and figure out what to do. We have the country divided, and unless we start killing people we have to live with the other 50%. We need compromise in some areas, to hold to our non-negotiable stances in others, and to just on top of all that stop treating each other so shitty. We as a country are not going to find that in our leadership, that ship has long since sailed. We need to be decent, understand the opposing view as more than just three sentences. Racist, bigoted, harmful as some stances or views may be, we need to understand why people hold them in order to figure out a solution to this culture clash bullshit.
Eponymous (talk) 10:01, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
@Eponymous So, mixed results? Like I predicted? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:18, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie Yeah, there is no party I would call the winner here because it's not like the pendulum swung the other way. The Democrats are definitely a winner for getting partial control of our checks and balances, and Republicans are a winner for keeping the Senate. Both parties mostly just won along the lines of who had the advantage, so the people in particular that I could call the winners are those who broke barriers being elected because hey nice things for people usually fucked over. It is clear though that the loser is all of us, for having such a broken political atmosphere/mechanism. I honestly just recently started looking at the Saloon Bar and my attention was grabbed most by drama so I missed your prediction, but you seem like a perfectly intelligent fella so reading the writing on the wall (too rare a skill) makes sense. Eponymous (talk) 20:30, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
I mean, if the results reflected the actual popular voting totals, phew boy there'd be a winner. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:57, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

For those not paying attention the Democrats are plus 33 more seats and could finish with as many as 40, when counts are done.Ariel31459 (talk) 14:51, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Quasi philosophical question I guess[edit]

I've not been on the ol RatWiki for probably four or five years, and it seems like it's a completely different place at this point. Do you think this might be because of personal factors in my life when I was active on the website? Perspective distortion due to nostalgia/faulty memory/whatever? Due to the wider internet culture around the late 00s/early 10s in comparison to now? Just because there's new people here who are, by definition, going to change the kind of community structure of a website like this? Some combination of those factors? No idea to be quite honest. Interesting stuff, to be sure. (talk) 10:38, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

The community is, by definition, areflection of the people contributing to it. It changes as times and people change. I've been here on and off for a long time and I've seen it evolve over the years. Most users only last two or three years so any attempt at trying to keep things the way they were when you joined is a lost cause. I don't see any planned attempt to change the culture. It just happens. Avida Dollarsher again 12:55, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Rob's still a twat, though. That bit of the culture never changes. Avida Dollarsher again 12:56, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
I agree that Rob is way out there most of the time. Doubt that will change in the next 5 years. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:40, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Mod elections[edit]

With less than 1 week of nominaytions and campaigning there's 8 candidates vying for 8 positions! It needs to get added to the site notice and people need to run (talk) 13:28, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

We will have a boring election unless there are more candidates. I still can't be asked to apply for tech though, so @FuzzyCatPotato, @Ikanreed, @Kazitor, @Bongolian: Somebody fix the sitenotice! It's the 9th already! — Dysk (contribs) 14:02, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
I did my part. Need help setting up in the campaigning section so we can go coast to coast in all 57 states, globally in the EU and the rest of the Third World. RobSmithGrab 'em by the nob! Nobs for Mod! 02:09, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
A few more nominees are running now. Damn, I was hoping for a coronation rather than an election.... --RWRW (talk) 17:21, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
@RWRW I am running against you. In the spirit of friendly competition- Be ready to lose. ;) . RZ94 for moderator --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 20:51, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
@Rationalzombie94 excellent, there’s been a lack of real competition. Bring it on :p —RWRW (talk) 21:14, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

My attempt at a Purge EAS scenario: Tell me what you think[edit]


All done on my tablet computer using the Kine Master video editing program. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 20:07, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Oldest star ever discovered[edit]

Scientists think it's at least 13 billion years old. (talk) 00:17, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

My understanding is that very massive stars, like this one apparently is/was, have lifespans measured in millions, not billions, of years. So what exactly has been discovered? Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 19:40, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
In simple terms it is a primordial star which died in a low energy supernova, and subsequently reformed as a low mass star with a greatly longer life span than our own. Our own star will only live around half that time so this is old. The star is unusual because when they go supernova they are generally destroyed or turn into black holes, but this one kept shining. (If you want to research it more, it has the really catchy name of SMSS J031300.36-670839.3) — Dysk (contribs) 13:52, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Astronomers also believe that super-massive stars such as these were the first population of stars to exist, or the so-called "Population I" stars, considering that the first stars existed over 13.5 Ga, and that this star is only 13 Ga, that being a difference of 500my, I suspect that this star instead is a "Population II" star, the second generation of stars to have been born in the universe, of which a few still exist to this day.--Palaeonictis (talk) 14:12, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Making the Death penalty simpler[edit]

Instead of wasting tax payer money feeding, clothing, bathing and provide medical care for those who are guilty, get a rope and tree. Simpler, less money, and little bureaucracy. What good is death row or even life sentences if we waste tax payer money and give criminals more life than the victims? I know this is dark but criminals got it better than even people in nursing homes. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 03:31, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Firstly, be careful saying "rope and a tree" around people who are familiar with the history of the United States. Secondly, death row takes so long due to the lengthy appeals process, where the government attempts to ensure that they aren't executing an innocent person (and even this has occasional, tragic failures). The appeals process is also much of what makes death row so expensive. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 03:52, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
For most of the cases I think were appropriate for the death penalty, there is very seldom any issue about who the culprit was; in the cases where I'd defend its use that argument is specious. Then again, I'd prefer that it only be applied to mass murderers for a cause, people like Bin Ladin, McVeigh, Breivik. Whatever issues might have been raised in trying them for their lives, that the wrong person was in the dock is not one of them. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 03:59, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
I agree with this. I don't like the death penalty, but I wouldn't abolish it for pretty much the reason/cases you stated. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 04:47, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Alternative: Abolish the death penalty and redesign prisons into (mostly) self-sufficient societies. (talk) 03:55, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I cannot fathom what imagined problems of justice either this or RZ's idea think they're solving, but they're both really bad ideas. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 03:59, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
What's bad about making prisoners grow their own food? (talk) 04:03, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
A lot. No one else in society is supposed to be this Rousseauian human who individually handles all their own needs with no specialization of labor. Also land use from inefficient use of farmland by amateurs without expensive equipment. Also it's a band aid on the problem of overpunishing petty crimes. Also there's no reason to think it contributes to reform. Also it gives a dangerous amount of freedom to the few prisoners who are a threat to themselves and others. Also some prisoners are mentally incompetent for modern farming. Also, it's not solving any particular problem, which was my original concern, and shifting the burden of proof to me is rude. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 04:41, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Sorry for being rude lol. (talk) 05:08, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
You're welcome, I gave you that out on purpose, because I'm your pal. Only downside is you're not going to incorporate any of my mostly reasonable objections into your nutso worldview. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:09, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Nutso worldview lol. You hardly have a clue what my worldview is. But thanks for partly acknowledging that some of your objections are ridiculous. Allow me to address the ones that're somewhat reasonable. First, obviously prisoners would still be limited in their freedom, and dangerous ones moreso. Second, land use. It's true that turning the current prison population of the US into self-sufficient traditional farmers would require untold amounts of area. But who said the farming needs to use traditional methods? I admit imagining Amish communities managing vertical farms with the latest hydroponics techniques is a strange thought indeed, but the aesthetics of an idea being strange has little to say about its practicability. I'd also remind you that the agricultural yield of the swathes of area currently assigned to prison complexes is approximately zero. So much area wasted on nothing. Now would it help prisoners? Well, I don't claim it would magically solve every problem, but I don't see how teaching people self-suffiency and responsibility would be a worse method of turning prisoners into responsible citizens than any currently available alternative, which usually achieve the opposite. The threat of being forced into a humble life of self-reliance may also be a considerable turn-off to some criminals, particularly the ones who idolize violence and would love nothing more than to martyr themselves in the fight against their perceived enemies. (talk) 19:10, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
But since the USA has the highest imprisonment rate worldwide, the country would be empty in a matter of weeks! This sounds like an excellent plan to me. (talk) 03:59, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Yah right. Is this the "we can learn from the Chinese gulag" arguement where the recidivism rate is less than 2%? Inane apples to oranges statements like "highest imprisonment rate worldwide" is why nobody takes liberal bullshit seriously. RobSmithIvanka 2024! 07:43, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Sorry to burst in on Planet Nobs with a dose of reality, but at 655 per 100,000, the USA is far and away ahead of anybody (ok, China's figures aren't known, but you can take your whataboutism and shove it up your arse) - particularly civilised, industrial countries, and essentially every body else. I'll expect your denial of rality, and blaming of Hillary in 3... 2... LongLostLegend (talk) 11:23, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Let's examine your liberal bullshit methodology for a moment. The official Chinese incarceration rate is 118 per 100,000. Now if we subtract 1 million Uighers imprisoned for their race, ethnic identity, or religion, the number of Chinese imprisoned for actual crimes is much less, correct?
Still stand by your idiotic bullshit liberal talking points? RobSmithIvanka 2024! 00:34, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, you dumb fuckwit, because China is an oppressive regime, whereas America is supposed to be a bastion of freedom, and yet imprisons far more of it's citizens than any other developed country. See how that works? Quoting China doesn't magically make America's terrible record go away. LongLostLegend (talk) 15:40, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
So even after I blasted your flawed premise, your flawed methodology, and your flawed source out of the water, you still stand by your flawed statement. Why is no one surprised? RobSmithGrab 'em by the nob! Nobs for Mod! 19:47, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Ah, here we go with Rob'd Idiot Grin Stratagem. You haven't blasted anything out of the water. Your whataboutism doesn't impact on the fact that the US's incarceration rates are off the chart compared to other developed, industrialized countries. If you continue to deny that very simple fact, then you are being deliberately disingenuous. Why is no one surprised? How much simpler can I make it? China bad. USA also bad. Geddit? LongLostLegend (talk) 09:14, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
very simple: "USA [..] bad" = "idiotic bullshit liberal talking point" and automatically wrong. got it? (talk) 10:15, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
You having a hissy fit doesn't negate the point. Or how do you explain the US having a massively higher incarceration rate per capita than any other developed democratic country? Actually try defending your bullshit position for once. I'll wait. LongLostLegend (talk) 10:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
The Death penalty paradox is one of the reasons I don't take many Americans on their world view seriously, at all And yes, Americans since they are the only Western democratic country to still murder its citizens. There is a meaningful relationship between those who support the death penalty and those who are against abortion as well as against big government and government interference. We hear these memes all the time. This resistance to the government becoming a bloated overreaching force. A government taking away people's freedoms. And on the other hand the horrors of terminating early a precious life earlier than necessary and the desperate need to protect them at all costs (in some cases allowing a mother to die if it means protecting the life of someone who is helpless. Add on top of this the set of family values which strongly holds near absolute views on important principles, many related to the categorical covering of not killing, stealing, lying, adultery etc. And yet despite this enormous resistance to the government taking away freedoms and the obsessive need to protect a zygote or barely formed fetus and in extreme cases full out militias banding together to protect their rights...there seems no disconnect whatsoever with the government murdering a citizen. And no, don't pretend it isn't murder. It IS murder. It's killing someone when it could easily not be done. Take away our guns...no way big government. Keep us from religious rights...no way big government. Murder a citizen...that's okay big government...you can do that...I'd flip the switch myself. In this sense, the government has the right to end your life. I cannot think of a more horrific fate someone could face from an "overreaching government" or that someone would destroy a precious life because "all life is precious", except it seems those who have been found guilty in a court of law, their life isn't precious because of excuse 1 2 and 3. And we can see how rotten this narrative is by the way some of you have talked about those on death row as some dehumanised thing that merrits no humanly considering, something people ha,ve done throughout history to make it easier to do awful things to them. If it was wrong that the person killed, its wrong to kill him, that's a no brainer, and it's the utmost wrong to allow a government to murder them. Again. No brainer. The cost...irrelevant. The crime they committed...irrelevant. Their living conditions in jail...irrelevant. How does that in any way mitigate the moral conflict of the government murdering a citizen? ShabiDOO 08:07, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Condemning someone to a life of homosexuality is not cruel and unusual punishment either, I suppose. RobSmithIvanka 2024! 08:31, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
nobs, I'm sincerely disappointed. I expected something far funnier (and more original) than dismissing liberal bullshit. (talk) 10:47, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Avoiding the question if death penalty is moral, what could be made simpler is the way in which prisoners are killed. Because, as far as I understand, the elaborate cocktail of drugs they get is just to make the death looks painless, while in reality it is not. -Lankaster (talk) 09:26, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

For a vast majority of issues my mind is pretty concluded. However, I'm so torn on the whole death penalty issue. On the one hand there are some truly evil people who don't deserve to live. On the other hand the idea that the state can take the life of a prisoner makes me feel uneasy. One of the most popular arguments is it is cheaper than life in prison, that isn't true. Apparently around half of Britain wants the death penalty reintroduced but I can't see it ever happening. There just isn't an appetite for it. --RWRW (talk) 10:50, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Albert Pierrepoint turned against the death penalty.

Logically if the death penalty 'worked' as a deterrent there would be very few executions. Anna Livia (talk) 11:16, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

few compared to what? If not specified your argument doesn't make sense. A correct test of the effectiveness of the death penalty as a deterrent might be comparing the rate of murders in two similar countries, one with the death penalty for murderers, the other without it. The difficulty is finding such countries, because for example US has death penalty but also many other characteristics, like loose gun control, which could screw its murder rate comparison with countries without death penalty. -Lankaster (talk) 13:27, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
well, if you are going to pull the whole american exceptionalism you can just compare death penalty states to non-death penalty states. non-death penalty states consistently lower murder rates. the whole deterrent idea is just bunk. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:31, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
@AMassiveGay this comparison makes sense. An explanation of the fact that murder rates are actually higher in death penalty states could be that once a murderer knows that he would get a death sentence, he has no incentives to stop murdering people, especially while trying to escape from the cops. -Lankaster (talk) 17:32, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
There are many ways of killing people, singly or in groups, so gun control is not necessarily a factor. There will always be a certain number of murders and manslaughters for a whole range of reasons - and if the death penalty did work as a deterrent people would find other ways than murder of 'dealing with' the persons in question. Anna Livia (talk) 22:45, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
The larger question is twofold: Are we collectively as a society going to allow the murderers to run the plant, and what responsibility do we have to murderers?
Then come a host of subsidiary questions; If no crime is deserving of death, what are appropriate punishments for rape or child molestation?
Then come speculative questions, such as, Why are the rights of murderers greater than society as a whole? What right do we have to imprison a tax cheat, they didn't kill anybody? RobSmithGrab 'em by the nob! Nobs for Mod! 04:50, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
What a coincidence. I was recently checking out scheduled executions in USA. 14 November is the closest. In about 4 days, this guy will be executed. He murdered his wife and son by hitting them with a blunt object and hid them in his washroom so he could carry on the lie he had with his mistress. Should I feel sorry for this guy? If it was a robbery gone wrong, maybe... But the punishment should FIT the crime. Why should I pity him? He took a blunt object and killed his wife and child just so he could live with his mistress. And we should let this guy sit in a cell, with medical care library and possibly a computer or a TV? Being fed? The point is that criminal punishment is more important than rehabilitation. I simply don't see any logic behind people who claim he shouldn't be executed. Kingdamian1 (talk) 05:00, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Just thought I'd point out: It's interesting to see people who love to object to theocracies executing people defend the right of secular states to do the same. (talk) 05:12, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Ok, so you have a tax cheat who objects to working to pay taxes to feed and house a murderer in prison. Society collectively feels it has the power and authority to stop him from fulfilling a job in society, make him a ward of the state in a prison, and impose the cost of feeding and housing him on other willing taxpayers. While in prison, the tax cheat is murdered by the killer. Are taxpayers and society as a whole complicit in murder? RobSmithGrab 'em by the nob! Nobs for Mod! 05:29, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
It's mostly just an incompetent prison system that's responsible. Don't let prisoners kill each other. (talk) 05:34, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Society as a whole, which made the collective decision not to execute the murderer, and to imprison the person who objected to society not fulfilling it's responsibility, then has a duty to protect both wards of the state. If it fails, society is negligent. RobSmithGrab 'em by the nob! Nobs for Mod! 05:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Sure. So society should probably support prison systems that don't let killers endanger other prisoners. (talk) 06:01, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Coulda woulda shoulda...but it happens all the time, prisoners murdering each other, which is basically Nazi stuff - the state using murderers to murder people.
Unless you are willing to pay more in taxes, to guarantee a prisoner's life is protected after you've restricted his freedom, you become complicit and negligent if he's harmed. You placed him there, and you made him vulnerable, and a target. And you did it because you're a coward who refuses to live up to your responsibility to administer justice.
On a personal note, I was in Wisconsin on the day Jeffrey Dahmer was murdered by a fellow prisoner. I was shocked and horrified when my co-workers on the job were high-fiving each other when we heard the news. I felt a sense of guilt and shame, and was more frightened by people who abrogate their responsibility as citizens to administer justice, and think justice is having murderers do their dirty work. RobSmithGrab 'em by the nob! Nobs for Mod! 06:27, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
You don't need to pay more taxes if you just keep the murderers in their cells/chain them to the wall/etc. Not every change needs to increase costs you know. (talk) 06:36, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
People aren't objecting to theocracies executing citizens. They're objecting to the reason those theocracies are executing people, and occasionally the method. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 06:28, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Nah, I'm pretty sure most people who object to it wouldn't want any theocracy anywhere near the death penalty, regardless of the reason they cite. Let's be honest here. (talk) 06:36, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Of course not. Because theocracies execute people for bad reasons. Notice that the variable here is the type of regime conducting the execution. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 06:42, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
So then answer this: Why does society feel it has the right and power to take away a person's rights who doesn't pay taxes to support society's laws, but feels it's powerless against one individual who violates the most serious law in land? RobSmithGrab 'em by the nob! Nobs for Mod! 06:51, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Not exactly sure what train of thought you're going for, but how is not killing a murderer the same as being powerless? There's an abundance of other options besides killing them and doing nothing. And why is killing them automatically "the right punishment" or even automatically a punishment? Murderers can be pretty suicidal, you know. (talk) 07:08, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
the way rob talks is as if the rest of the world dosnt exist or that every other country has a death penalty. they do not. he taslks as if rape and murder are in endemic in every other prison system in the world. they are not. every 'problem' rob has with not killing prisoners are not particular problems that the western world has within their prison systems because the US is alone in the western world with its fucked up prison system, alone in the western world in the sheer quantity of people it imprisons, and it is alone in the western world when slavery is alive and well within its prison system.. the penalty is barbaric, but the american prison system is barbaric and would still be without the death penalty. and it is costly. the us spends 74 billion on the its prison system each year. do your really think axing the death penalty is going to add to that cost in any real way? the us system is an expensive disgrace. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:03, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • The really simple solution is simply to abolish said death penalty. Simple, efficient, safe. No accidentally killing the wrong people. — Dysk (contribs) 13:56, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Your solution is to give murderers a license to run the planet, and make the rest of us powerless to prevent it. RobSmithGrab 'em by the nob! Nobs for Mod! 20:05, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Sir, murderers already have a license to run the planet.
The death penalty is expensive, ineffective, inefficient, racist, sexist, classist, and inhumane. It afflicts a psychological toll on not only families of victims and the perpetrator but also those who have to carry out the executions. Retributive punishment does not work and it shouldn't continue being practiced. We're beyond that. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 20:34, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
On that note, abolishing the death penalty actually stops the most powerful group of potential murderers (they're literally the law of the land) from abusing their power so it's odd nobS doesn't support this. (talk) 20:41, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
rob, please explain how not killing peoples 'give murderers a license to run the planet'? as it empty assertion its idiotic, in the face of evidence like those countries with no death penalty have substantially lower murder rates its imbecilic. i'm all for those on the right have a voice here, but why we only get right wing voices of the retarded? AMassiveGay (talk) 21:22, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
So, there's no crime worthy of death, even killing people. Murderers are free to kill, with s 50-50 chance they may get away. Alternatively, law abiding taxpayers are restricted by law from killing. RobSmithGrab 'em by the nob! Nobs for Mod! 22:08, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
im not sure what that is answer to, but its not an answer to me, fucking imbecile AMassiveGay (talk) 22:14, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Retributive punishment. It does not work. Human beings are complicated. I do not believe in eye for eye, even in a society where we absolutely know who the murderers are. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 22:29, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@RobSmith To be clear I don't think anyone is advocating to abolish the right to self-defense. Also, since you mention it, I actually think overt crimes of repeated molestation and/or torture are probably more severe ("worthy of death") than single-issue murders. (talk) 22:27, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think it should be used for murders; I think it should be used for terrorists and mass shooters and the like. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 22:48, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
On that note, one should also consider that some assailants don't see death negatively at all, and would be quite happy with being considered "worthy of death". Not to mention quite willing to put in the effort required. And the media attention is a nice extra as well. (talk) 22:51, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Can you explain: the US has the death penalty and many mass murders, while Europe does not and has very few such that are not terrorist related.

And the point of 'an eye for an eye' is not retribution but - do not escalate. Anna Livia (talk) 23:05, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

"Eye for an eye" is retaliation. I don't think it's effective in today's context nor do I find it morally acceptable. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 23:07, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Murder is not an accident. It's not like rain that falls from the sky that organized society can do nothing about.
Again with the bullshit international comparisons. Europe has free healthcare (that contributes diddly squat to NATO for their own defense). China imprisons fewer people than the US (not counting Muslims imprisoned for their ethnic identity and religion; hell, Russia still imprisons people for homosexuality which throws any statistical comparison and methodology off; or nation's where they cut your fingers off for shoplifting, they have real low detention rates). Now you think your going to make comparisons on murder rates.
First of all, since ancient Eygpt, the vast amount of murder rates are typically spouse-killing-spouse, usually husband killing wife, but it works the other way, too. Intrafamilial. This has been true and incidence fairly comparable of all nation's, all societies, at all times. What's left is a fraction of random, usually stranger-on-stranger acts, which can vary. This is the number that can be used to make statistical comparisons, not the overall rate. RobSmithGrab 'em by the nob! Nobs for Mod! 03:51, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Not all international comparisons are created equal. (talk) 04:58, 12 November 42018 AQD (UTC)
how about that non death penalty US states have consistently lower murder rates than US states with the death penalty? see the the link where i said this earlier AMassiveGay (talk) 11:40, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
The case for 'an eye for an eye' meaning the response should be proportionate to the original offence has been made.
There will always be a certain number of killings (murder, manslaughter and other). Whatever opportunities are provided by society as a whole or the particular context to resolve the situation by other means some people will always commit murder for a variety of reasons. The question then becomes - who is the execution aimed at? Restitution for the dead victims, their living families, to discourage others, signalling the position of the person ordering the execution, what? Anna Livia (talk) 12:58, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Jails are human zoos. Executing a person is a less damaging thing to human dignity than locking them inside those hellholes. The death penalty should be implemented for all offenses where it's clear who the guilty is. I don't understand why terrorists or rapists 'deserve' to die but a simple street thug doesn't. Society should abandon the primordial animistic taboos about death and embrace the reality that most career criminals are incurable sociopaths who aren't merely useless to society but a detriment to it. On the other hand, putting people in jail for offenses like drug possession is inhuman. It's people like these who are the real victims of the criminal justice system. Gewgtweg (talk) 21:30, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for illustrating perfectly why giving bureaucrats with delusions of grandeur the authority to put people to death is a certifiably horrible idea. (talk) 21:54, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
When the fuck did you meet me and figured out I have "delusions of grandeur"? I'm well aware than I'm entirely insignificant in society and I struggle to accomplish as much as pay my bills. Don't assume things about people you don't know you fucking imbecile. Gewgtweg (talk) 23:56, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
There is a certain grandeur of pseudo-intellectual flavour which sees great glory in the devaluation of all things beneath the heavens, you know. Though that's all somewhat besides the point, since "bureaucrats with delusions of grandeur" wasn't particularly referring to your person. If anything, you'd be one of the fools giving said self-obsessed bureaucrats, which no institution of state is ever short on, the power to execute their demented dreams. Something you illustrate by mentioning in the same breath the abuse the current state is already committing, all the while unaware of the completely apparent paradox. Smdh. (talk) 00:23, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Reeks of anarchist BS to me. There is no credible alternative to state institutions and never will be. What are burglars and hustlers to you and why wouldn't society be better off killing them as opposed to putting them in a zoo with others of their kind? Gewgtweg (talk) 01:05, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, having state institutions is kind of unavoidable if you want to have some sort of large-scale society. That doesn't mean you have to go straight for genocidal authoritarianism as your accepted form of government. Wtf. (talk) 01:25, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Patrolling edits[edit]

Is it important? I've sometimes seen some weird hijinks like people reverting then reverting their revert as the "quickest way to patrol all those edits." I don't recall ever paying attention to it myself back in the day. (talk) 08:20, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

people doing that are just very lazy. it cant be that hard. its only like 1 person anyway (talk) 09:12, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
I am that one person and I am not very lazy. I thought that, when somebody has made seven or ten changes to a page, doing it like that, just requiring 2 clicks, was a more sensible way of checking the changes. Since, for reasons that I don't understand, that seems to have pissed other people off, I won't do it again. Changes by editors that we don't know or trust yet have to be checked. They might be vandalism, attempts at whitewashing or misguided good-faith attempts to make the articles more neutral. Mind you we were recently told that we had to mark all pages as patrolled before we deleted them. I don't really know what the deal is with that. Some technical stuff that I don't understand. Spud (talk) 10:53, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
@Spud Imagine this page full of five months worth of unpatrolled edits. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:26, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm not upset or anything, just thought it was peculiar and was kinda baffled that people took the red exclamation marks so seriously. (talk) 17:51, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
The red "!" is just very annoying to look at, especially when there's dozens of them. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 22:43, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
I remember when the red ! is so much more prevalent and people cared less about them. Not saying it's a *good* time, but you'll get used to it if people didn't care so much, trust me. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 22:53, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
An unpatrolled edit is an edit that hasn't been reviewed. That means it could be spam, vandalism, doxxing, death threats, or merely an edit by a newer user. Patrolling those edits is the act of reviewing them, determining which category they fit into, and taking appropriate action. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:12, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Personality tests[edit]


I don't know how much reliable they are, but some of these tests are hilarious to take. For example, one question of the "Moral Foundations Test" is:

Scott is hosting a dinner party. For dessert, he serves chocolate cake, shaped to look like dog poop.
Agree <--> Disagree

-Lankaster (talk) 23:01, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Strong agree. (talk) 23:03, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't understand how that's an "agree" or "disagree" question, that's a more like "like or dislike" thing. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓(T|C) 00:38, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Sounds like a Voight-Kampff test. X-Wing @Aliciousness (talk) 01:22, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
I would never serve chocolate cake shaped like shit. And, although I wouldn't take it as a great insult, I wouldn't find it funny if any of my friends offered that to me. But if other people think eating cakes shaped like turds is a bit of a giggle, who am I to stop them? So, I'd see the question as meaning, "Should Scott serve that cake? Yes or no?" And without any further context, like who the people at the dinner party are, what Scott's relationship is to them and what he hopes to accomplish by serving the cake, I can't answer yes or no. I can only answer, "Maybe." Mind you, I'm sure my response says something about my personality.Spud (talk) 05:01, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
The subset of personality tests with any sort of scientific backing is vanishingly small. Just treat it like bullshit and move on. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:27, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Time Cube And Truth of Wisest Human[edit]

Sarsour: Protests and arrests[edit]

Can other users please join in the discussion on the "Protests and arrests" section on the Linda Sarsour talk page? Thank you.

Note: I wrote this post after suggestions from two moderators. -Lankaster (talk) 15:57, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

New season of Doctor Who[edit]

It started out fairly typical, but I'm having a hard time finishing the ultra ham-handed rosa parks episode from 2 weeks ago. This is the first time I've had to put a show I normally like on pause overnight because I really can't bear to finish an episode. And I've done it twice with the same episode.

Partially, it's that it's a history episode, and unlike every other history episode, where they're interacting with a crucial historical event(but with aliens) they have to stop the relevant dialog for a side conversation about how important this moment is like 30 times, instead of, you know, once. Dear writers, if you want to tackle an important historic event with your writing, please just take off the gloves made of ham. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 01:34, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Also there's at least two plot holes, maybe three even. — Dysk (contribs) 02:02, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Plot holes in Doctor Who? Mind = Blown. (talk) 02:42, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
But this is Rationalwiki not Whowiki. :) Anna Livia (talk) 10:31, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Nope this is Whowiki now, move aside while we discuss time travel in minute mind-bending detail. — Dysk (contribs) 13:54, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
The new season is absolute garbage, which is a shame, because the actor is coolTheDarkMaster2 (talk) 14:18, 7 November 2018 (UTC)TheDarkMaster2
Though I kinda like some of the designs of the alies, except that pregnant dude.. That was just lazyTheDarkMaster2 (talk) 15:55, 7 November 2018 (UTC)TheDarkMaster2
I think the current season is mostly a return to form after a long detour into dark and soapy territory. My canonical Doctor will always be Tom Baker, but Whitaker seems to have the character down fairly well. I like the lack of emphasis on long term story arcs. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 21:03, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
I mostly like the new season, although I think "Arachnids in the UK" was the low point so far. Jodie Whitaker is great as the Doctor, and Bradley Walsh's character is fantastic. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 00:54, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
It's mostly okay, though personally I think it would've been better/more interesting if Jodie played 12 and Capaldi played 13. (talk) 01:49, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Well, there would be a problem with that. The BBC hasn't got the time travel tech that the titular character has. Be fair. Kencolt (talk) 05:12, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Actually, editing all the tapes isn't technically complicated. Not that I expect anyone to do it. Just an interesting alternative to consider. (talk) 14:18, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
You know that "editing" isn't the name of a genie who you can just wish for new footage from, right? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:01, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Just a matter of switching heads around. You should see some of the funny vids with Trump's head inserted everywhere. ;) (talk) 19:08, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
NOT really an argument in support of your proposition. Kencolt (talk) 02:18, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
A great argument for not taking everything too seriously though. ;) (talk) 02:32, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
When will the Dalek reincarnation of the Doctor occur? Anna Livia (talk) 00:32, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
It won't. It's canonically impossible, in fact. Despite a certain fluidity in physiological sex, the Doctor is still a Time Lord, and a Gallifreyan. The Daleks are highly mutated variant of the Kaled species. Regeneration ( not reincarnation, which is an entirely different thing) may allow for certain alterations of appearance, physique, and even physical gender, as well as psychological alterations to some personality traits, but the core genetics, biochemistry, and even arguably aspects of his/her organic chemistry are all Gallifreyan. She's a different species than Kaled, much less the severely altered mutation that is a Dalek.
That's like asking when Deeprak Chopra will reincarnate as a sensible human being. Since neither reincarnation, or Deeprak Chopra have any relations to reality, that ain't happening either. Kencolt (talk) 02:18, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Rusty the Dalek seems to disagree. (talk) 02:32, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Rusty is speaking in a philosophical sense... referring to attitudes, cultural norms, and a perceived similarity in the Doctor's willingness to-- when pushed very very far-- throw a(metaphirical) punch and Rusty's natural innate desire to KILL EVERYTHING WHATSOEVER.
In other words, not exactly the best of sources. Also, Rusty's statements are less literal and more "Oh, yeah, well, so are you! So There!" WHich works fine for Daleks and the Alt Right, but not so good for logical people and Time Lords. Kencolt (talk) 04:17, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Given the diversity of the multiverse, why shouldn't there be Dalek Timelords 'somewhere'? Anna Livia (talk) 12:46, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
If a dalek doesn't kill everything, is it still a dalek? It'd be like saving the bengal tiger by genetically reprogramming them to be herbivores. You've saved something, but it's not a fucking tiger. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:49, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Hmm, I sense a No True Dalek fallacy. Also, save for Rusty (and Dalek Caan), Daleks usually don't massacre their own race, so that's a considerable caveat to add onto that "kill everything" maxim. Sometimes they also use other races as servants. And they're usually pretty friendly with Davros. Though it's interesting to consider what really makes a Dalek a Dalek. We've had regular humans fully injected with Dalek DNA as well as human mutants inside Dalek casings fulfilling the role of Daleks. Which one is more Dalek? (talk) 15:54, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Suggesting it as an interesting thought experiment - how would 'everybody else' react, and what would the Doctor's nature be like? Anna Livia (talk) 16:33, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I only have one big problem - we Haven't had an "Epic doctor moment" yet. What I mean by this, is a moment where we see the doctor in all her true glory, where she really shows us her power and intelligence. For Tennant, we had the entire ending of Family of Blood, For Matt we had "I'm the doctor. Basically... run", and Capaldi had "The man who stops the monsters!", and Chris had "Doesn't that scare you to death!", (They all had many more of course, these are just the first ones I thought of) I'm not saying that she won't have one, but its sad we haven't seen one yet (Although admittedly, Tennant didn't really have any for a while). Blackblood909 12:10, 14 November 2018 (GMT)


Some time ago, I asked that we should rewrite our article on Jesus' historicity. It seems to be written to piss off the religious, instead of documenting facts. here is what agnostic historians think about our article. I would appreciate if someone went ahead and corrected the whole attitude. I do not think I would be considered neutral on this, so I would appreciate if someone undertook, to either add some summary where we state the consensus etc. Or rewrite the tone of the article. The article straight-up endorses fringe, Mysticist view. Are you fine with me doing it? Kingdamian1 (talk) 03:40, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Your source is a Reddit thread, and the answer is no. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 05:02, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Jesus' historicity is not questioned by any serious scholars. The idea that there was this gospel brain storming room where 4 apostles rewrote Krishna's life and duped Tacitus and Suetonius is bullshit. I checked Britannica on this. NO ONE seems to take Christ Myth Theory any more seriously than Marlovian Theory of Shakespeare's authorship. We have a wealth of evidence that Jesus existed. In comparison, the only evidence of Pilate that proves he existed is a semi-destroyed stone. Imagine, Pilate was a friend of Tiberius, the emperor, and this is all that survives. It is so dishonest to claim that Jesus did not exist. Kingdamian1 (talk) 05:07, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
The sources you provided are dubious. If you would like to be taken seriously, provide something more reputable than a bunch of people chattering on Reddit. If that's the only reference you've got, then your babbling isn't worth considering. Cosmikdebris (talk) 05:29, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Despite what some replies may suggest, you're on a wiki and it's quite alright if you decide to use the edit button. Though if others don't find your edits persuasive, you may end up seeing them mercilessly reverted. But don't presume this will automatically be the response just because everyone responds in a cranky way here. Start small and use good sources, and who knows where you'll end up. (talk) 05:39, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Sir, this is the CAPS LOCK Police. There's been some reports of unwarranted use of Caps Lock. You don't happen to know anything about that, do you? Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 06:26, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
I'll try to ask around the Religious Studies department where I go to college. Maybe they'll have some good sources? RoninMacbeth (talk) 06:58, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
"It seems to be written to piss off the religious"
tfw you realise you're on a childish troll wiki instead of a science site (talk) 18:55, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Says the troll. Honestly, if you have nothing more than insults an empty assertions, you should leave. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:26, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Bye then. (talk) 21:10, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
It should definitely be reviewed at least. It reads less like an article that is trying to document the historicity of Jesus and more like a resource for Mythicism. Kingdamian1 (talk) 01:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I mean if you want sources see:

  1. Funk, Robert. Honest to Jesus. San Francisco, CA: Harper San Francisco, 1996.
  2. Lüdemann, Gerd and Özen, Alf. What Really Happened to Jesus: A Historical Approach to the Resurrection. Trans. John Bowden. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995.
  3. Sanders, E.P. Jesus and Judaism. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1985.
  4. Wedderburn, A. J. M. Beyond Resurrection. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1999.

Lüdemann, Özen, and Wedderburn are all agnostics, if that matters. Koi "the spelling's on porpose!" development 02:52, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

"Jesus' historicity is not questioned by any serious scholars" It depends on which Jesus they are talking about. If they refer to a man named Jesus who founded Christian religion..., it's one thing. If they refer to a man named Jesus who walked on water, multiplied bread and fish, raised Lazarus from the dead... then it's a completely different thing. -Lankaster (talk) 17:38, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Oh yes I completely agree. The point of providing those sources isn't to establish Jesus as a miracle worker, just that he existed. Honestly, it's kind of ridiculous that this site stoops to such radical skepticism on Jesus' existence. It's a well attested fact by virtually any scholar. Take up the fight against any miracle of his and there's no problem – in fact, exactly 0 of his miracles can be supported with any evidence of any sort. The only one that scholars on both sides argue about is the resurrection. Koi "the spelling's on porpose!" development 00:15, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Jesus mythicism is every bit as stupid as creationism or climate change denialism. Whoever has followed the arguments in this academic issue and isn't yet convinced that the mythic Jesus is directly based on a historical cult founder by the same name, will never be convinced. It's not worth bothering with this anymore. Let the fools in the comfort of their illusions. Gewgtweg (talk) 21:39, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
For all your claims of having unbiased genuinely academic sources(and that being a central conceit of your argument), 3 of your books are printed by fundie presses. I really do wish my local library had the exception by harpers, because I'd like to check your assertion of their position, without you know having to spend money and clutter my home with it. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Nevermind, shouldn't have trusted the citation as given, the Funk book is not actually harper, but a harper affiliate, also a fundie press, polebridge press, in fact one whose explicitly listed mission is to publish books supporting the historicity of Jesus. For fucks' sake. Why are we taking fundie push-press seriously here? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:09, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Humans better at rapid change then they think[edit]


Thoughts on this article? It gives me some hope. — Unsigned, by: Spacehillbilly / talk / contribs

'Green' austerity is just as irksome as the other colors or flavors. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 03:54, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Ah yes, "irksomeness" is the problem with austerity politics, not argument by massively overstretched metaphor, or rejection of modern economics for grossly simplified ones, or the, you know, direct harm that the purposeless changes invoke. I'm so glad you're here to protect us from not dying on boiling planet, by being annoyed, smerdis. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:53, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

How would you all solve the problem of the one and the many?[edit]

Go. Be free, young thinkers. Koidevelopment (talk) 01:14, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

By manually fixing the warp core to rescue the Enterprise from the Genesis device, of course. It's only logical. Avida Dollarsher again 10:01, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Doesn't the Borg have a better solution? --Annanoon (talk) 10:04, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Hard to say. They have ONE solution they apply to everything. (talk) 12:54, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Love 2 abstract moral delimmas until all context is gone and ur forced to pick between absolutist deontology or absolutist consequentialism. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:42, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
?? Vive Liberté! 16:54, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
I was trying to do an irony. Non-ironically, hyper-abstraction is pretty useless in morality. The more abstract you get, the easier it gets to justify any intrusion into the rights to individual. If you can legitimately weigh the life of 10 people against the life of 1 in some trolley problem it's easy to justify. The more realistic the scenario of weighing the lives of 10 against the life of 1, the more likely you are to be wrong about saving the 10, or actually needing the 1 to die. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:00, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
The problem of the one and the many isn't an ethical problem. It's a metaphysical one. It's the problem that the pre-Socratics were primarily concerned with. The question goes something like "how can there be diversity among existing things while still being united in that they're all material?" 锦鲤 () 17:04, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
But yeah I agree hyper-abstracting is fairly useless when talking about ethics. #CantComeUpWithACleverSignature 17:05, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Reality is an octopus and all bits of existence are tiny tentacles with sorta-independent sensory systems but all ultimately operated by Mr. Big Octopus. (talk) 03:11, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Ah. Koi "the spelling's on porpose!" development 16:55, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Bucket and Mop[edit]

Seriously, whose boots does one have to lick around here, to get demoted to the bucket and mop brigade? LongLostLegend (talk) 11:54, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

@LongLostLegend When most of your edits have been to the Conservapedia WIGO tall page, something that most users here don't give a shit about anymore, what can you expect? Start editing main space articles, then things might change. Spud (talk) 12:17, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
i got mine (or did, dont know what i have right now) and i didnt do shit. still dont do shit AMassiveGay (talk) 13:08, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, things have changed since I was last here. Bucket & mop used to be the default. But it's cool. I'll just have to let vandals run amok when everybody else is asleep. LongLostLegend (talk) 14:25, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
@LongLostLegend All right then. Since that's your intention. And since we have just had a vandal running amok with no sysops on duty to stop him. Congratulations, you're now a sysop. Spud (talk) 15:03, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Who are you talking about? (talk) 15:06, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm not going to name the vandal, if that's what you mean. (But look at the section above.) And I'm not going to single anyone out for not responding because there were clearly just no sysops around at the time. Spud (talk) 15:12, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
I hereby name the vandal to be "King of the Time Cubes". — Dysk (contribs) 17:43, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
I hereby name the vandal to be a brainless pissbucket. Avida Dollarsher again 19:28, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
I hereby name the vandal to be Mister WonkyDonkers, the magic pupply-wupply-wowzers tinkie-boo. He shall live next to the Teletubbies in a split level shoebin and sell sugar frosted gyro meat to the wandering lambs and limbs. Kencolt (talk) 04:42, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Dammit, why aren't you on the Supreme Court? Avida Dollarsher again 09:37, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Partly because no-one's asked me, partly because I have no formal training in law, and mostly because I'd look rather silly in those long black dresses they wear.
They're not dresses? They're judicial robes? Oh. Well, never mind that last then. Now I must go back to my magic castle to decorate the overly critical Flowers of Morgellon. Kencolt (talk) 10:56, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

While I would prefer a Republican for Governor of Michigan, here is why I am glad the Democrat won[edit]

Not because of political stance but rather that Bill Schuette (Republican candidate) surrendered early on before all ballots were counted. That just shows a lack of conviction. I would not want a leader who gives in so easily. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:20, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Since the main political use of Governors is their veto power, you kind of have a point. (talk) 07:17, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Cowards make not great leaders.--Palaeonictis (talk) 12:54, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
he clearly thought he was lost so he conceded. the final count confirmed it. it wasnt close. whats the issue here? where is the cowardice? AMassiveGay (talk) 13:02, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Bill Schuette gave up 2hours after the polls close. He didn't know for certain. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 13:25, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
so he made a call and judged it right? its not like he could have done anything more. elsewhere, we call this sportsmanship. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:31, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that Jimmy Carter conceded before the polls had even closed in California. --RWRW (talk) 13:44, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
i still dont see your point. its often clear to see when you arnt going to win. its an idiotic thing to make any kind ofjudgement if someone concedes. refusing to concede when all votes are in? yes. arguing the toss when you've lost? yes. conceding because its clear you lost, and when the final vote confirms that concession? its idiotic. rousing speeches arnt going to change anything. more campaigning wont. whats the issue here? is this really something thats going to colour your future judgements? if it is you are a fool. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:52, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
So sticking it out to the end is a bad philosophy? --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 19:32, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
It certainly can be. Depending on how wrong you are. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:49, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes. Two words: Roy Moore. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 20:01, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
it was hardly ducking out early - he had seen it through to the end ie the vote. honestly this is textbook sour grapes AMassiveGay (talk) 20:46, 14 November 2018 (UTC)


When was the last time the entire country celebrated as a whole. As far as I know, America hasn't had a sense of optimism since 2001. Squibblele (talk) 13:50, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

where was sense of optimism in 2001? i kinda remember that time a little different. not an american of course, but i read the news. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:54, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Firstly, this is an international project. Don't go bandying about words like "the country" without making it clear which country you're talking about. Secondly, you're never going to get everybody in a country celebrating at the same time. A lot of people in the UK enjoyed the Queen's Diamond Jubilee. But people who wanted the monarchy abolished didn't. Most people in Britain were incredibly happy when World War II ended. But some British fascists would have been upset because the Allies won. Many people in the USA would have celebrated the Moon landing in 1969. but some people would have seen it as a disaster that would lead to the extinction of the moon weasel. Spud (talk) 15:01, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
moon weasels were carriers of rabies and bovine tuberculosis. its good that they are gone. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Honestly, in spite of the apolitical nature of your question I'm fairly sure its answer is in the american political right. There's a money-driven media apparatus to keep them as scared and angry as possible about everything, that has little to do with any actual events, elections, or social trends. You cannot actually have a sense of optimism when there's a 24 hour blast of "The government is going to oppress you" when they're not in total power, "college students on campuses are going to oppress you" when they control everything, and "immigrants and foreign terrorists are coming for you" at all times. Now nicely supplemented with financially promoted fringe media allowing outright falsehoods in addition to mere misleading narrativisation. When approximately 25% of the population is kept in a paranoid sense of constant threat, and that 25% is given way more voice than anyone else, how can you possibly derive a sense of optimism. About anything? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:04, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't think you can say that about any country at any time period. Given an event, some may be happy, others sad. And then there are those who are completely indifferent. Life goes on, as they say. In any case, the world as a whole is getting better over time. That, to me, is a cause for optimism. Nerd (talk) 02:17, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Something on the lighter side for a change[edit]

HeadOn! (THA Remix) At least it's danceable and less monotonous... Towards-the Unknown (talk) 20:50, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Mini Ice Age paranoia is back in the headlines[edit]


Got to love that sweet paranoia with inconclusive data. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 14:46, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh, once you click through that's not really paranoia. The transatlantic currents have been well established as a main cause of Europe(and particularly the UK)'s comparatively moderate winters for their latitude. That about a decade ago those currents started failing or shifting course as a result of climate change is a claim also having substantial validation. I can't project the extent to which the UK will have harsher winters, that's hella above my paygrade, but the underlying logic of Corbyn's brother is entirely sound. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:18, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
It's ladbible. Barely even a news site. Compared to them, Buzzfeed is like Walter Cronkite. Avida Dollarsher again 17:46, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
I stand by what I say. There was a little mention of ocean currents. They have no other data that would provide further information. If you have no other data then you cannot connect your data to other information. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 19:29, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
you know the difference between a news report and a science research paper, right? one is generally light on the data. guess which one. ikanreed is correct. i have read elsewhere that melting ice caps could flood the gulf stream, giving the uk the same weather as canada, on which we are the same latitude. canada gets properly cold winters. the uk does not currently. the 'mini ice age' refered to, like the thames freezing over like the in the 1700s - not a world ending cataclysm, would fit that, canada style winter. whether we do get this year or not, i couldnt say. probably not. but a colder than usual winter is still forecast and certainly a worry in northern parts of the uk. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:03, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
and as avida says, the ladbible? you wonder why its low on data? i'd find a better link but i could only find tabloids. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:05, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
@AMassiveGay When I posted the link yesterday it was the first time I saw the site. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 14:42, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
This must be a British site. Do people in the UK really refer to young men as 'lads'? In these parts the word has very different connotations, and generally you outgrow 'lad' status once you hit puberty. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 19:41, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
its generally both depending on context. there is the jack the lad type usage and their is the wee lad usage, its no different to refering to someone as'one of the boys' and not referring to a to a school kid. then theres 'lad' culture which is kinda frat boys but less wanky and no entitlement. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:22, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Here in the United States, because of geographic differences people have different meanings of the same words. I know a little about British dialect but not that much. I am sure User:AMassiveGay is right because I don't know. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:15, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
it varies significantly from north to south, east to west. geordies may as well be speaking a different language to folk from essex. we have dozens of accents differing accents. theres at least four in london alone AMassiveGay (talk) 00:30, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Note, sorry for my overreaction to the lower post.

Now here in Michigan there is the upper and lower peninsula. I am a resident in the lower peninsula. We commonly call people in the northern peninsula Canucks. They are Americans and are part of the same state. People outside of Michigan entirely will use the Canucks slang and only mean Canadians. Just an example. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:45, 16 November 2018 (UTC)



What is anyone’s thoughts or opinion on this subreddit and collapse theory in general?

Is it bullshit? — Unsigned, by: Spacehillbilly / talk / contribs

I mean, is it bullshit that we've got serious sustainability problems facing us in the next half century surrounding water, climate change, natural resources, and economics? No. Is it bullshit that there's a single possible narrative of how those problems are going to play out spinning into a massive international social collapse? Kinda. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:48, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Goodpost.gif (talk) 21:47, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Is their hope or a way we can solve our sustainability problems? — Unsigned, by: Spacehillbilly / talk / contribs

Yes and yes, in theory. I wouldn't rule out humanity screwing things up though. (talk) 00:16, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Why are many Americans obsessed with the British royal family?[edit]

I am American and I have no clue. It is not a new thing but we fought a whole war with England with that kind of thing. Is the American War of Independence ignored by these people? My loyalty is to the United States and not England. If these people are so obsessed with the British royal family then they can move to England. It would be like someone who was born and lived in France was obsessed with the Japanese royal family. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:46, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Not so sure about "many", but it's probably just an extension of regular celebrity culture. (talk) 00:10, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
It's just typical celebrity fetish, encouraged by tabloids and gossip rags. To the people that are into that sort of thing, it has little or nothing to do with politics or patriotism or the history of the country. Cosmikdebris (talk) 00:15, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
you know, you're just a short hop away from 'if you dont like it, get the hell out'. people are allowed to like things. why do people like hollywood celebrities? why do people like beiber, why do people like zombies? and its not really like you're french/japanese analogy - two countries with no connection (and the french have their own royalist history to fall back on). us/uk? theres a history there thats not restricted to the war of independence. the british royal family are an apolitical figurehead of a fantasy britain that only exists in the period pap that we flog to you yanks, some who whom like to indulge in a little fantasy f what might have been. not my cup of tea but if floats your boat, but why shouldnt your escapism have jug ears and a ginger bastard? you probably spend more on all the pomp and ceremony on your presidential inauguration than we do on the royals, so theres clearly an appetite for such dross that isn't split on party lines AMassiveGay (talk) 00:18, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
and there are plenty of folk who love are enamoured with japanese culture, chinese culture, and so forth. cultures far removed from their own. i bet a few of them are french tooAMassiveGay (talk) 00:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
@AMassiveGay I do support Love it or leave it. I could argue with you but in every single discussion we had, it is clear that there is zero point in arguing. I know you don't like me but I don't like you either. Should have said this 5 years ago. This is my last argument with you. I support my country despite it's faults. Why live in a country you hate and do not support? I have no use for anti-Americans.
The British royals have to be some of the hardest working people in show business. Their job is in one sense to show up and look pretty, which would be hard for me; and to give no scandal, probably out of my reach. The interesting thing is that they have vast theoretical powers they aren't allowed to use. In theory, the Royal Navy is the Queen's personal property, and she could sell me an aircraft carrier and all of its airplanes and the title would check out at the BMV. But, of course, she isn't supposed to do that and she knows it. If it came down to open conflict between Queen and Parliament, that war was lost years ago. But nothing got put down in writing. The Prince of Wales's unremarkable opinions about buildings and butterflies, set down in a series of notes and memos without any formal demands, became a minor scandal. For the royals, even that is too political. I would abdicate in less than a day; I couldn't hack it. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 05:17, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Better mention the stuff below before I get baseless accusations

I am not some racist maniac who hates people with different skin color. I am not a homophobic prick. I don't hate transgender people. I am not a gun nut nor a religious right fanatic.

I strongly support the United States.

I am not some free speech hating nut. I am aware that American citizens who hate America are protected by free speech laws. Free speech is a two way street. A person has the right to say unpopular opinions.

One last thing. Just because I support my country does not make me insane. Mental illness makes me insane and that is why I take medicine. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:41, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

You're missing the point completely. As AMassiveGay said, conflating the statement "If these people are so obsessed with the British royal family then they can move to England" with someone's entertainment obsession is just plain wrong. Cosmikdebris (talk) 00:56, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
i dont dislike you, but when you open with something that i generally have trouble deciding if it is meant to be flippant or a polemic its going to get a response. this thread specifically - it irks me when folk pile on the hate on something that doesnt matter or effect any one at all, be it worshipping royalty, or style of music, pop star what have you, it just irks me. its like saying 'that thing you like, that brings you joy, a sense of identity or belonging? its shit and your shit for liking it'. im as guilty of that as anyone, but ive learnt to bite my tongue. it just irks me. its not racism, its not homophobia, its not sexism, few folk are going to get murdered over it but it amounts to the same thing - they are different to me so i am better/they worse than me. it just irks me. i should just ignore it and i try to, but it just irks me. AMassiveGay (talk) 01:11, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I may have over reacted a bit. I have met plenty of people who hated America and were obsessed with the British royal family. You end up getting a bad opinion about a group.

An example:

Same thing happens when some transgender people (I said "some") say that if someone does not find a transgender person attractive sexually, the fringe, minority accuses you of transphobia. It does not help the LGBT community. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Funny enough I find that to be a common frustration as someone on the center-left, because trans rights are important. However I find a very vocal minority of my friends (the Gang of Four as my friend group calls them) constantly posting the most over the top stuff that really shuts down discourse, takes things to the ridiculous, and hurts the larger movement (which I realize is me using the same logic as the inquisition). Sexual attraction is involuntary and not everyone is the adventurous try it to see if I maybe then like it style of person. My fellow center-left congregate in a Facebook group named social justice is important but let's not lose our fucking minds to post screenshots of cringe arch-progressives. Eponymous (talk) 01:53, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson was an absolute Francophile. What started with French support of our Revolutionary War with figures like only got stronger with the Louisiana Purchase and us having a new buddy around, since we had just broke up with Britain. The relationship between America and Britain has been like, on good terms for over a hundred years and anyone who fought in that war or met someone who met someone who fought in that war is dead. The Great RapprochementWikipedia happened long ago, we even talk of the Special RelationshipWikipedia between our two countries. Prime Minister Tony Blair and President George W. Bush each had a their own nation to focus on, an outsie of that plenty of political differences. They felt a commonality of purpos following 9/11 and found shared beliefs on how to respond to those strategic matters, famously pledging to stand "shoulder to shoulder" with Bush.

"This is not a battle between the United States of America and terrorism, but between the free and democratic world and terrorism. We therefore here in Britain stand shoulder to shoulder with our American friends in this hour of tragedy, and we, like them, will not rest until this evil is driven from our world."
Tony Blair

Blair flew to Washington immediately after 9/11 to affirm British solidarity with the United States. In a speech to the United States Congress, nine days after the attacks, Bush declared "America has no truer friend than Great Britain." Just to point out how different things had been a decade ago, a time before thanking President Obama for doing a good job with Hurricane Sandy by shaking his hand would doom Chris Christie's political clout for years, Blair stuck by his friend and his shared purpose even though it helped tank his approval ratings. When people started literally calling them totes gay? Blair defended the relationship as beneficial to the Middle East peace process, aid for Africa and climate-change diplomacy.

On the topic of the Royal Family, it's just beautiful rich people who take photographs well and live fairy tail lives in the magazines having large expensive weddings full of high fashion and celebrities. It is like weapons-grade tabloid trash for people into that sort of thing. William And Kate was a big deal because we needed a cheap television event for the entire globe that only had a single nation paying for it (the royal family may have, they are rich) and because people love weddings. The main reason however was that it mirrored the beloved wedding of his mother and father, Prince Charles and Lady Diana Spencer, termed then a "fairytale wedding" and the "wedding of the century" with an estimated global TV audience of 750 million people. Lady Di's tragic death that drove the world into irrational hysteria and ushered a new age of grief tourism.

I mean Jesus, the world has had a lot of things happen the past decade and even more the past few hundred years of our young nation. The global community is even more connected now with the internet, our interests can reach across the world and need not be defined by the wars, passions, and also resentment of those passed — which is not a statement to belittle those events or the people in them. Just as they had their time and choices, so do we. How does interest or affection for another country have to subtract from allegiance or belonging to the one they are born in? France modeled their constitution, as did many countries, partially after the United States Constitution.

I apologize for the rant, but I keep seeing this isolationist stance popping up and also these generic ideas brought up. The daily thought-terminating clichéWikipedia that seems to scheduled alongside the resentment for the 'other' on the global level. Have we come to a point where we must now look for reasons to shit on other nations because we either we have little to be proud of or are too much of a 'America is being treated unfair' victim complex? It fucking blows watching the 1930's play out again in real time.

The last point I'll make is this, what does it really mean that your loyalty is to the United States? It's a common statement, but no one ever goes an additional step deeper. People want to watch the Royal Family and you think they should go to England, that sounds pretty damn unlike the America that I know. The America that is a bunch of people with different views and interests coming together into a fucking shit show of conflict/discourse/understanding and that was founded by a bunch of dudes in a room trying to compromise on an article of government while suppressing their hate for various other founding fathers.

It was not the globalist or multiculturalism that those embracing nationalism should have come to fear and hate. There was no need to choose between sacrificing one's own identities or the destruction/isolation of another's identity, interculturalismWikipedia ushers in the coming cosmopolitanWikipedia era. Eponymous (talk) 01:53, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Dude, liking something about/from another country doesn't mean you're not loyal to your own. I'm a red-blooded American patriot, and there are loads of other cultures that I enjoy experiencing and learning about. That's just normal. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 01:57, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I admit I overreacted[edit]

Like I started after my last reply, not the frustrated one, when you meet people who are obsessed with the British royal family then they state they hate America, you get a bad opinion. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 02:35, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

you act like hating "america" is a bad thing. it'll get you in my good books (talk) 04:20, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

The British Royals[edit]

(And probably most other royals)

  • They are a more diverse range of personalities than politicians.
  • They are allowed (and possibly are to some extent encouraged) to be slightly eccentric.
  • They have no "problems with guns", and do not have to keep an eye on the electorate.
  • They are part of the "finery and flummery" that keep the whole system going like Black Rod (and have you seen the price of a full judge's wig?)
  • Noblesse oblige and all that.

Anna Livia (talk) 11:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)


How can you tell if you are a Sysop?

I'm new here...Doublethink (talk) 05:36, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

List [1]. Also you can delete ("vaporize") pages and all the crap here: RationalWiki:Sysop guide. --Annanoon (talk) 14:20, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Annanoon, also is being autopatroled a good or bad thing?Doublethink (talk) 17:05, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

A good thing. It basically means that we think you are probably not a vandal, but are too new a user for sysophood. RoninMacbeth (talk) 17:09, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Should i be concerned...[edit]

...that i half remembered a dream i had a month or two ago and spent most yesterday unable to decide if it was a dream or it actually happened. pretty sure it didnt happen, but found the whole episode...disturbing AMassiveGay (talk) 12:18, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

That might depend what the dream was. If it was something that could conceivably have happened in real life, I wouldn't worry. If you weren't sure whether or not you really walked down a street and saw a turtle eating George H.W. Bush, that's a bit worrying. Spud (talk) 14:20, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
it was definitely in the realms of something i would do but just didnt in this instance. i wont go into the lurid details AMassiveGay (talk) 15:18, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
In which case, I wouldn't worry about it. Spud (talk) 16:13, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
That happens to me. Well, regularly. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:30, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Vote on Community Standards[edit]

Howdy folks. Please take a look at this proposed amendment and vote. Thank you! Nerd (talk) 00:00, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Not out of choice, I have missed my sister's funeral[edit]

You're all witnesses. I said I wanted to go to my sister's funeral. It was on Thursday 15 November and I missed it. I wasn't expecting it to be so soon. I wasn't able to arrange a flight back to Britain and I couldn't have afforded one anyway. Now my uncle (my late father's brother) is giving me grief on Facebook for not being there. Saying I disgust him. The fucking arsehole! Spud (talk) 14:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh bugger. — Dysk (contribs) 16:26, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
You both have much to be upset about. Though there's no point in pointing your anger at each other, given the lack of control over the situation from both ends. Unless you want a go at each other as a convenient outlet for your frustrations? Either way, I hope you figure things out. (talk) 16:34, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Social media, where rational thinking comes to die. Don't worry about it, @Spud! It's the thought that counts. Have you explained your situation to him? If you have, don't bother with his behavior. Best wishes, mate! Nerd (talk) 16:41, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Same. Jesus Christ, Spud, why can't you just catch a break? RoninMacbeth (talk) 16:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
@Nerd Yes, I tried to calmly explain the situation to my uncle. I saw I had another message from him. I thought it would be an apology. But, no. It was just more of the same. I've also now had two cousins saying similar, although less angry, things. I'd like to point out that I haven't said anything angry to my uncle and I'm not going to. I'm mot going to unfriend him and I'm not going to say anything more to him about the funeral. The last thing I want to do is turn a tragedy into a drama. Fortunately, I have had a real friend on Facebook, a Canadian woman who I used to teach with in Turkey, come to my defence. She understands the situation because she was in Turkey when her grandmother died and there was no way that she could afford a ticket back to Canada. It's a pity she's got involved in this unpleasantness. Spud (talk) 02:58, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Woof. The speed at which the old guard moves, they are lost on gen X. I can't make it to out of state thanksgiving this year, woof, woof woof, woof. Yes, I'm barking like a dog. I am in charge of so many people who don't have family anywhere else. I am so sorry. I wish I could just bark at it. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 06:43, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

The Police Association is like the fucking mafia[edit]

Me and my family generally support the police. Now at one point my mom donated money to the regional police association. Every few weeks they keep calling for donations. We don't have much money but we give when we can. God that is annoying.

Even the ASPCA does that crap too.

Bottom Line[edit]

Charities should not hound people for money like the mafia. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:36, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Never give a charity a phone number, email, or mailing address; and donate only cash. Database marketing guarantees that no good deed will go unpunished. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 02:48, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
In general, be very careful about giving away personal information. Relax and ignore people whose causes you don't care about. Nerd (talk) 03:52, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Charities that cold call you are most likely scams, particularly the "police" one. Bongolian (talk) 06:16, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Proper funding[edit]

While they may not be asking for money to run the police services, they are very likely underfunded and are quite familiar with the push to need money. Them harassing you again and again is a common tactic that charities use, those desparate for money and they allow with 3rd party fundraising services to badger the shit out of you, and only a small portion of that money ever makes it into the hands of those who need it, most going into the pockets of the owners of the 3rd party fundraisers. That being said, I find it pretty hard to trust American policemen and to a lesser extent Canadian ones. Not just because of their violent bias towards minorities and their extremely obsessive focusing on firearms problem solving and an extremely agressive belligerent attitude towards suspects and bystanders, but the worst is how they almost invariably defend and stand up for really really really bad apples. Lying to investigators, dismissing a flagrant injustice as "reasonable", denying an event even if clearly caught on tape, sticking up for monstrous behaviour, trivialising police abuse etc... doesn't foster in any way an environment of trust. It's hard to see the non-bad-apples in a positive light when they defend the rotten-apples. (talk) 03:23, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Donations thermometer[edit]

Perhaps modifying it to go past the 'goal achieved' marker to whatever is actually achieved.

It being 'Children in need' day in the UK - support any good causes that particularly appeal (and be generally helpful to others). Anna Livia (talk) 16:45, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

@Anna Livia That's the fist thing you've ever said with which I completely and thoroughly agree. Spud (talk) 03:27, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
And what about - 'accept other people's pet views/those arising from their cultural context (people from the UK and US are likely to have different attitudes towards gun control) if they are positive/reasonable/harmless, combined with a willingness to accept divergent views? Anna Livia (talk) 11:51, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Maybe I'd agree with that if I could understand it. Try dividing it into more sentences. Spud (talk) 05:59, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Important notice[edit]

The deadline for accepting or declining in the mod election nominations is only hours away. Anyone that has been nominated and neither accepted or declined by the deadline will be stuck in the "presumed inactive" section. No late candidates will be eligible. — Dysk (contribs) 17:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I want to raise an objection to this "doing things on schedule" thing. It's completely at odds with our entire wiki culture. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:50, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
We need to finalise a list to start the voting... — Dysk (contribs) 17:59, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
The final list seems to be:
  • Bongolian
  • DuceMoosolini
  • LeftyGreenMario
  • RoninMacbeth
  • RWRW
  • Spud
  • Rationalzombie94
  • DiamondDisc1
  • RobSmith
  • Cosmikdebris
  • Nerd
  • Scream!!
  • FuzzyCatPotato
--RWRW (talk) 01:17, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
How is it at odds with our wiki's culture? I get that we generally have a hands-off approach but there's a line between that and just not giving a shit. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (#RoninMacbethForMod) 02:02, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
If the American election system worked like what ikanreed stated, voting would never happen or at least, massive confusion. I see zero problem with a schedule. RZ94 for moderator committee approves this message --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 02:07, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
@RWRW I concur with your final list. Thirteen candidates seems to be charming us this time. @Rationalzombie94 Ikanread was just being snarky. Every election in recent memory here has been delayed for one reason or another. Get used to it. This is a project that relies on volunteers, and most of us have a real life that takes priority some time. Cosmikdebris (talk) 03:45, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
…. Fuzzy, Bong, Ronin, good guys....
… Lefty isn't bad, Scream I think I like...
DiasmondDisc1, my goodness, is Diamondisc still here?
Is this dementia!?!
RWRW is my only no, take that for what it's worth. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 06:58, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
I wouldn't worry about it, @Gol Sarnitt, I have the same chances of winning as I do for winning the lottery - and I never buy any lottery tickets! --RWRW (talk) 09:44, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
I think the odds are better than the lottery! — Dysk (contribs) 17:02, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
To all of my countless supporters who have been left out in the cold by a rigged system of super delegates, know that I will still be fighting for the greatness of RationalWiki. This is a sick system. Terrible. Terrible. Sysop DuceMoosolini, because she is totally bought and sold by special interests. And by the way, has tremendous hate in her heart. Many, many, most Sysops are wonderful people, but is there a These are bad people. They’re controlled fully — they’re controlled fully by the lobbyists, by the donors, and by the special interests, fully. These are very, very bad and evil people. They know who they are. Is there a Sysop problem? Look what's happening. Sysop Cosmikdebrisi, whose blatant false sockpuppet allegation will never be discussed by the Fake Moderation Discussions. Many such cases! I've faced tremendous abuse from the Sysops, more than any other candidate in history. We will take things back! The forgotten contributors of our Wiki will be forgotten no longer.Eponymous (talk) 09:09, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Cosmikdebris (talk) 15:30, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • The list has been submitted to David Gerard who may now start the election soon. — Dysk (contribs) 10:54, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Don't worry Eponymous, all of my super-deligate votes from communist West-Europe are going to you, just waiting for the confirmation reference number...my assistants in Switzerland keep asking when it will arrive. I hope soon. Anyways, good luck with the election...I'm sure you'll demolish the special interest lobbyists and those who hate editing freedom and who resist making rationalwiki great again. And please, don't forget about the transfer. We Western-European communists are patient and so we await your generous charitable donation. In case you forgot, the bank account IBAN number is: 0076 2011 6324 5432 7. Best wishes ShabiDOO 03:32, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Invalid IBAN check digit! Invalid IBAN check digit! — Dysk (contribs) 10:25, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
No no no my dear Dysklyver. The IBAN I gave is for the dark internet. The format most Swiss Banks use. Silly bear. ShabiDOO 23:41, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Wyd tbh[edit]

So what's changed and what's new with you lot since my (enforced) absence? Is everyone still banned? Daily flame wars over Israhell? (talk) 03:45, 18 November 2018 (UTC) (theamazingskeptic/fedoratippigskeptic/etc)

Right on the first count (perhaps to an even greater extent), wrong on the second. (talk) 05:19, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓(T|C) 05:52, 18 November 2018 (UTC)


The insanity of Brexit narratives[edit]

During this week I have read no less than 5 reputable media sources which are all, at the very least, Brexit friendly, including the Times. Throughout this week I've seen the story about Brexit grow in increasing absurdity at the highest levels of stupidity. These delusions include the following themes:

  • The EU are bullying the UK and we need to fight back
  • The EU will be standing mouths agape when the UK tells them they get no money and no deal
  • No deal is better than temporarily staying within the common market
  • The EU wish to punish the UK
  • The UK is on about, equal bargaining footing with the EU
  • The EU will have no choice but to let the UK pick and choose what to remain part of or they will face dire consequences
  • The EU should make exceptions to their most fundamental principles for a partner country that is quitting the union.
  • With no deal, the UK will be find and new exciting opportunities will appear out of thin air and return the UK to its former glory in unbridled prosperity and wealth and influence and greatness.
  • The UK is being victimised by the undemocratic EU negotiation process.

Does anyone else find it painful to watch this super slow motion train wreck? ShabiDOO 00:17, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

The vote was 52% out, 48% remain - so the end result will reflect this. By the rule of 'if a politician denies something (mainly that they will resign) three times, it is actually true' given the number of politicians speaking against a second referendum it is likely to happen.

The option that should have been included on the original referendum - 'shake it all about' (and turn something set up for 6 states in the end of Empire and rising Cold War period into something that suits the world 60 years later). Anna Livia (talk) 00:25, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I (obviously) supported Brexit, and I'm not ashamed to say it. But there's no doubt that the negotiations have not gone well. The Prime Minister's Brexit deal is going to die a very sorry death in next months Parliament vote. I also think that the idea the UK can walk away with a no-deal situation is ludicrous. We need to reach a deal. I think the best way is to replace Theresa May with somebody like David Davis. Since May was a remain voter, I think it is very likely that her heart wasn't fully in it when she was leading the negotiations. We need a PM who actually believes in Brexit, and who isn't a moron like Boris Johnson. I also (unsurprisingly) oppose any idea of a second 'people's vote'. The people have already voted. To try and overturn the referendum would set a bad precedent for politicians to simply ignore votes that they don't agree with. --RWRW (talk) 01:15, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
@Shabidoo Didn't the British vote to leave? Don't you believe in self-determination? If you are a U.K. citizen who voted, you did what you could. If you're not a citizen, don't bother. Nerd (talk) 01:45, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
No one questions the UK's right to self-determination. They question the wisdom of the way they have exercised that right. RoninMacbeth (talk) 01:54, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't think the EU should give the Brits a good deal until they learn how to spell words correctly. "Color" doesn't have a "u" in it, you damned redcoats! Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 02:26, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
@DuceMoosolini Have you seen this, Il Duce? Nerd (talk) 02:30, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
That is excellent. Thanks! Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 02:36, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
People voted to leave the European Union, not rip every tendon and artery of its maticulously integrated economy with the EU in one day without an alternative. They voted for soverignty, not jumping off a cliff chasing a fantasy. Every countrty in the world has economic treaties with other countries and makes compromises and comitments. The worlds nations do this every day. It's not a bad thing and the UK will have to do that now or in a very bad state and low level of bargaining power in the future.
I am a UK citizen and I wasn't permitted to vote because Brexiters won their campaign to keep UK citizens in other European countries from voting. Obviously anyone exposed to any other narrative than the EU boogeyman, or had an inkling of how the EU cannot possibly have the kind of powers Brexiteers say they do or be as remotely disruptive as they say they were, as well as be in a place that's thankful for the benefits and prosperity that came from it...would very very very unlikely to vote for the exit.
But I'm not talking about if it's right to leave or not. I'm talking about the collective group INSANITY that has reached the UK parliament and media, and no, not just the tabloids. When May and her deal come up, all reason falls to the ground and a maniacal stupidity reigns. It is really disturbing to watch. Brexit means leaving the Union. Not chopping your head off. Or does it?
The single market and freedom of movement is never up for negotiation. No threat of any kind will change their minds, especially for a quitter that has rejected what the union stands for. Anyone who knew a single thing about the EU would realise that. It is the equivalent of expecting the UK to give up their royal family and the pound at the bargaining table. In any universe could you see that happening in the next six months? Then why should the EU give up it's highest values? Why would they? And yet Brexiteers think that they somehow can use the possibility of a no deal to make them compromise on their most important values, for a quitter that has rejected what the union stands for?
The UK is at an extreme disadvantage at the negotiation table. Do the math. The London Times obviously cannot. A no deal will hurt the EU and will pummel the UK. The EU will get over it, the UK will take decades. The numbers are not hard to work out. The conservative government obviously cannot. The EU wants this over. The conservative cabinet wants to drag it on in bouts of political drama and hissyfits while insulting the EU every chance they get and an eventual perfect compromise-free deal. In other words, they want a no deal. It's like Lennin on the eve of the creation of the Soviet Union full of hope and promise to try out his political and economic fantasies.
When someone offers an imperfect deal that attempt as much damage control as possible and temporary measures...they call for her head. It's like a mob with pitchforks and torches, only now in the digital age. Breaks my heart to think of all my British family and friends who will suffer.
And please stop referring to what the people voted for. The voted for leaving the EU. That was the question. Not which of the most suicidal methods would be used to leave. ShabiDOO 03:55, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
@Shabidoo Yes, I realize people voted on the question of whether or not to leave the EU, not how, because that would be jumping the gun. Now that people have voted to leave, the question is how they would do it. As they say, the devil is in the detail. I wish the British people the best of luck. Nerd (talk) 04:09, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm not pro-Brexit or anti-Brexit. Not to get into comparisons of which side is worse, but the alarmist narrative on both ends is vastly overstated. The UK was fine inside the EU, it'll still get by outside of it. The main people that'll be majorly inconvenienced by it all will be expats. On that point, Shabidoo, you have my sympathies. (talk) 04:23, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

what fucks me off is there was plan to begin with. it was we dont like this lets break it. brexiters offered nothing and now its broken they still offer nothing. we've taken this path and they dont even have the decency to even to make the best of it, instead maneuvering for position in the same manner that got us here in first place with no one offering a clear way forward - not the tories, not labour - just crazy delusions, vagaries and politicking. its disgusting. every thing is dependant on what is finally decided, and until it is everything is a fantasy. every promise from a party, every plan for the future, brexit related or not is just noise based on quick sand. tories bicker and labour sits on their thumbs while every conceivable issue that produced the leave vote carries on. no one wins here AMassiveGay (talk) 09:01, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

The problem with the Brexit promoters and their arguments is familiar to Canadians who have had to deal with Québec séperatistes for the last few decades: it boils down to basically "You can't tell us what to do! We want a divorce! We want to become independent of your cruel oppression! But we still get the keys to the house and can use the car when we want to and keep the joint bank accounts and you still have to buy us gifts on holidays, and we still have to have sex whenever I want it." — Unsigned, by: / talk

False rape accusations waste time and resources for actual rape victims[edit]

When some women claim rape as means for public humiliation or revenge, it is just wrong and makes it less likely for real rape to be taken seriously. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 02:19, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Isn't that obvious? People often forget that the accused remain innocent until proven guilty. That of course does not mean we should not trust victims. Rather, corroborated evidence is required. Human memory is not inerrant after all. Nerd (talk) 02:22, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
I mean, sure, but I'd challenge you to find anyone who disagrees with you on that, so what brought this on? Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 02:23, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Good post! Yeah, what's the matter, @Rationalzombie94? Nerd (talk) 02:25, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

There are many crimes accusations that ruin people's lives and yet most give no second thought to those who were wrongly accused. Defrauding an employer or child battery accusations for example are just as devastating as sexual harassment (and I'm not even getting into attempted murder or terrorist threats). Yet when it comes to women accusing men of sexual assault and harassment, suddenly false-accusations become so much more relevant. Like they need to be pointed out like its as relevant as the accusations themselves. False cases somehow should be hilighted and publically lamented. Yes, false accusations can be devastating. And yes, false-accusers should be punished. No one says they shouldn't. Yes, investigations should look for evidence, of course they should. And yet so many women (and most men) don't come forward because of the spectre of doubt as well as a large amount of people who worry far more for the man who theoretically may be falsely accused than the woman who more likely than not was assaulted. False accusations against men shouldn't make things worse for other women...it's already as bad as it can get for most women to come forward and it shouldn't be that bad. And we won't get into how most men who make rape allegations are believed cause that's a different ball-game. False allegations are a reality with all serious crimes in our justice system and yet only a certain segment of the population ever talk about it and this is done exclusively about women accusing men of rape and sexual harassment. Why is that? Why the obsession with false accusations...only about men raping women? And please don't appeal to sexual harassment/assault somehow being in an exceptional class of accusations because there are many other crimes that have the same life ruining effect per false-allegations. ShabiDOO 04:20, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I think the basic problem is that rape allegations may arise under inherently ambiguous circumstances, where the alleged rapist and the alleged victim are the only witnesses, and either or both may not have been perfectly sober. And this is how humans have mixed and matched for centuries, so claiming that drunkenness always vitiates consent is not convincing, as well as covert alleged-victim blaming. This is what makes rape accusations different. I do not find it at all unreasonable to expect corroborating circumstances such as physical evidence of trauma and prompt reporting to the authorities in accusations that give rise to what in US legalese is called 'probable cause' to believe an accusation reliable enough to act on. But a prevalent belief system claims that it is unreasonable to ask for these signs of credibility. Accusations that carry none of them must still carry weight. I lived through the 1980s and 1990s, and I've seen where "believe the victims" leads. That belief system undermines the presumption of innocence, which is one of those worthwhile cornerstones of freedom, one that needs to be defended by eternal vigilance. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 05:07, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
We live in an era where the authorities regularly slut shame victims and put them through extreme psychological tests, all to test their sanity. You wouldn't see these same tests for anyone who was robbed or witnessed a murder. I don't remember the exact figure either, but the actual number of false rapes is either in the single digit percentile or barely above that. Even today, Louis CK is back in full force where upon getting on the stage from his nine month hiatus thought it was absolutely dandy to make jokes about how dirty rape whistles were, Trump was elected, and even Terry Crews was put through the gauntlet. Innocent until proven guilty is a bit too much to ask for in today's world. James Earl Cash (talk) 05:32, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Well because Loui CK NEVER RAPED ANYONE. You are the kind of person who thinks asking if one can jack off and then upon getting permission he did so. If he didn't get permission he he stopped. That's not rape it's just pathetic. RAPE is only forceful insertion without consent. Anything else isn't rape, white knight. You're acting like none can make jokes about rape. That's the point of comedians to mae light of tough subjects.TheDarkMaster2 (talk) 12:16, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
no it is not rape. there is still sexual abuse and sexual harrassment running the whole gamut from frivolous to ending jail time. the distinction is often lost on social media as i said below, but look at who you are defending here, what you are defending. in what world can you consider whipping your cock out and beating one out in front of someone who neither asked nor wanted you too acceptable behaviour. after you had locked the door. are you fucking crazy? 'if he didnt get permission he stopped' i should think so. he should not have fucking started. you could maybe laugh off one incident, if they were pissed, as an embarrassing faux paux, but this repeated behaviour. thats not a misunderstanding, thats predatory behaviour. this repeated abuse. and been admitted to. how do you not see this as problematic? at its most generous this is mental illness. is this the mens rights line you are spewing? are you so far removed from reasonable behaviour, so far removed from empathy, so far removed from sexual relationships that you think this is anything other than something to warned against and universally mocked? are you so unaware that you think white knight is a savvy dis and not a badge of your own inadequacies and failures everyone sees it as? this is beyond even the most terminal stupidity, this is something requiring professional help, not mens rights echo chambers, not blaming others instead of facing up to your own short comings. you dont need mens rights, you need to be a man. no, scratch that, a human being. jesus fuck.AMassiveGay (talk) 13:06, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Duck you what a loaded response, I never said what Loui did was AWERSOME STUFF I just said it's dishonest to compare it to what other legitamate rapist dide. Christ are you thick. You say I'm far removed from relationship as if a personal attack is relevant. As for MRA I think they're as stupid as third wave feminism both complaining about mostly non-issues. But considering how our culture treats one with respect and the other with ridicule it's a weird hypocrisy. How is it sympathetic to blindly believe women and go on a witch hunt. The METOO Movement is the 21st century equivalent of the Red Scare, or the salem witch hysteria. Nothing more than a movement based on false foundations employed by those with an agenda to fuck over others and get ahead. If you think otherwise you're delusional. Sure there are rapist just like there were communists but the vast majority of people that are accused are innocentTheDarkMaster2 (talk) 14:23, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
i'll start by directing you again to my views in my comment below. i believe i have more than made self clear there. then lets jump to louis ck and your angry defence of him not being a rapist. you will note i agreed with you. you then went on to diminish what he did. to lessen the unpleasantness of what has been confirmed and admitted to. we not talking baseless accusations here. you made no mention of sexual abuses or harrassment that would have been pertinent here, that might have suggested you were aware of the distinctions, that these are still serious things. instead you responded to a claim not made - that ck was a rapist or as severe a case. ck was brought up in reference to being literally caught with his pants down, admitting his fault then goes right back to making the same jokes about false accusations of rape (i tthink, im not familiar with is work). in context, peewee herman was arrested for wanking in a porn theatre, a business designed for that specific activity. he didnt work for years after and he harrassed no one. that you were seemly fine with that was the result of my incredulity. what ck admitted doing. sexual harassment of multiple people. and now back at work brazenly doing rape jokes. there is a deficit of empathy there to say that aint no thing. there is a frightening lack of understanding of how predatory sexual behaviour can be, about consent. if this is wrong, your black and white framing does not help you. lacking a sense of proportion does not help you. rattling off a list of famous scares and hysteria cases doesnt help, particularly when you missed out the ones that might have relevence - the satanic ritual one for instance. read my comment below. you will see i actually agree with you to some extent - social media feeding frenzies, due process, what have you,but you go too far the other way, further muddying the waters with your own hysteria, and with your own partianship, and with blatent unsupported lies 'the vast majority of people accused are innocent.' all you do is compound the real issue of false rape accusations - its makes so much harder for genuine cases. are you sure you are not mens rights? you know the lingo and you'd get on so well. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:38, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Ugh I'm tired of this straw man I'm not an MRA once again they're as stupid as third wave feminism. I didn't use the Satanic Panic because my bad I'm sorry I didn't use that panic. I believe Peewee Herman was innocent WHEN DID I SAY OTHERWISE LYING SACK OF SHIT? I never even brought up Peewee. That was just another shitty what-aboutTheDarkMaster2 (talk) 18:34, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm not reading Darkmaster's wall of text, but uh, you know Louis didn't just jack off in front of them, as if that wasn't bad enough. No, he actually cornered his victims into the wall and jacked off against them. That is rape, shit for brains. Never mind that you already pulled the Todd Akin card of it "not being legitimate rape." Can this guy get any worse James Earl Cash (talk) 17:06, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
So let me get this straight you didn't read what I said. And yet you think I'm apologizing for rape? FUCK YOU YOU SLANDEROUS female reproductive organ! I don't know who Todd Akin is sounds like an irrelevant douchbag, but I don't know. There's no evidence Loui CK held people against there will that's utter Penn bullshit. RAPE IS Force penetration. So they gave him consent and he only jack offed. There fore not rape? Do I need to spell it out to you?TheDarkMaster2 (talk) 18:34, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
I can only imagine what you must be like in real life. James Earl Cash (talk) 18:43, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
"Ouuuaaaaaahhh I'm not the one being a douchebag, YOU ARE." БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓(T|C) 18:48, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
@BabyLuigiOnFire@James Earl Cash Actually... @TheDarkMaster2 is right. What Louis CK did wasn't rape. It was immoral, unethical, and despicable, but it wasn't rape. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:27, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Might wanna rethink that one. I'm pretty sure I had a more concrete source on his other nefarious deeds than him just Freudian slipping him like a moron, but yeah...even without that, pretty sure dropping your pants to wank it unannounced veers so close to rape it might as well be just that, outright keeping someone from leaving on top of that seals the deal. If penetration is the only standard to call it rape, then some creepy old person shoving a teenager against the wall and dry humping them isn't rape either. For the love of god, please tell me we're not going down this road.
It's not RapeTheDarkMaster2 (talk) 12:50, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
I mean, next we're gonna say Aziz Ansari didn't do anything wrong, he only "coerced" Grace. Or to put it more succinctly... James Earl Cash (talk) 02:39, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
I Hate when people redefine words to fit their narrativeTheDarkMaster2 (talk) 12:50, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
@James Earl Cash It's called "sexual assault" which is a separate charge from rape for bloody fucking good reasons. Please don't tell me you're one of those morons who constantly conflates "bigotry" with "racism". ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 05:08, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Well shit. We're really having a Todd Akin moment here. This place really has gone to the dogs. James Earl Cash (talk) 05:26, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Sorry people criticize your worldview that everything is rape and one in 40 are rapedTheDarkMaster2 (talk) 12:50, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
@ james the fbi define rape as 'penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.' there are probably good legal reasons such definitions, but they are not the be all end, end all. however, if are going to broaden that definition, whats the criteria, and what do you we want to achieve by broadening it?, since louis ck seems to be focus here, what did he do, from whatever account that you are using, what makes it rape? simply being horrible doesn't cut it. and what purpose does it serve to call something rape if doesnt fit a particular description? will it mean we take sexual violence more seriously, or feed in to the unpleasant view that darkmaster is echoing, that just looking at woman at is rape, then it diminishes how seriously we take it. calling something sexual assault or abuse does not mean you do not take it seriously. it does not mean it was acceptable, or no there was no harm, but at the same time some acts are inherently more traumatic than others. i dont feel particularly comfortable or qualified to 'grade' levels of harm, i dont want to compound someones trauma by saying this person was raped, this person wasnt, but neither should you. victims of sexual violence should be able access justice and help without all this hysteria. we are sadly adding more fuel to the fire with our vacuous polemics. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:50, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
So, what did Aziz Ansari do? RoninMacbeth (talk) 21:11, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Now we've stepped up from a Todd Akin moment to Todd Akin moments, and concern trolling about how someone who was dry humped wasn't actually raped and anyone who says otherwise is the real problem. Ooh-wee!
PS. Asking what Aziz Ansari did is like Tomi Lahren asking Trevor Noah what the KKK did. Truly, this is awe inspiring. If you've read Grace's account then and still kinda sorta take his side, then uh...shit. I have absolutely nothing to say! Nothing whatsoever! Holy fucking shit people! James Earl Cash (talk) 23:32, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
i am now 41 years of age. i dont even remember how old i was - 14? 15? i dont know. i experienced much of what has been argued over here as rape. on a number of occasions. it happened. it ended. i went on with life. i never thought about it. it seemed trivial. through years of substance abuse issues, self harming behaviour, my mind went back more and more often. i dislike sleep because if i am not asleep by the time my head hits the pillow, i am trapped with thoughts of things i dont want to think about. i can hold it together for periods - emotionally numb, but functioning - until i start to feel restless. things get chaotic very quickly and then wallowing in shame, i think about what happened back then. now, life is spiralling ever faster downward. i cannot say with any certainty what happened is the root cause of all this. i cannot trust my judgement. i cannot trust my memory. something happened that at the time i did not understand, that i did not think about. now it is rare that i do not think of it. i do not think i was raped. i do not want to think i was raped. i do not know what i think.
i was going to say more, make some point. but i just cant.
i have not spoken to anyone of this before. i have not written of this before and i am not sure why i do now. maybe it will enable me to seek help. i'd rather not discuss this further, its been more of an effort than you could know. AMassiveGay (talk) 02:09, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
@James Earl Cash Answer me honestly, do you classify groping and indecent exposure as rape? I'm not asking if you think they are right or wrong, neither am I saying or indicating that they are or are not. When we define crimes so broadly and so generically, we do real harm to both the victims and society. For an example see the discussion on the definition of "terrorist" below. If any form of coercion counts as terrorism, at what point does every crime not become terrorism? Likewise, if public indecency becomes rape, what value does the charge of rape contain? I would contend that it ceases to have any value at all. Laws are nuanced so that we don't lock people up for major crimes over minor acts. What you support is so broad in it's scope, so shallow in it's definition, and so rigid in it's structure as to be monstrous. Such a system would see me in chains for rape for not wearing a shirt, or a mother jailed for the same charge for breastfeeding in public! ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:40, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────My problem with that reasoning is that Louie went out of his way to prevent his victims from escaping, and then there's whatever the hell that bathroom incident was supposed to be. If he really did jizz right against someone like I personally suppose he did, than that goes to a way bigger level than simple molestation, and certainly way more than groping. What we know he did anyway isn't a spank on the ass or someone going out of their way to stare at someone's tits, although those are plenty bad too, this goes far more than that. It doesn't help either that on his return to the stage back in August, he made a bunch of tasteless jokes about rape whistles.

AMassiveGay, yeah, I'm sorry to hear that. Shit is wrong. James Earl Cash (talk) 20:24, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

when you say false accusations what do you mean? do you mean accusations of a crime reported to the police, investigated and found to baseless or malicious, then while clearly not great are a drop in the ocean. or do you mean accusations made via social media ranging from unambiguously heinous such as bill cosby and rape to arguably trivial such james gunn and an off colour joke on twitter? this i do have issue with. bill cosby here is a one off. claims were made allowing overs to come forward, there was an investigation, trial and a rapist was sent down. justice was served. since then, claims are made of varying substance and severity, there is no formal investigation while the outcomes of the resulting social media frenzies are inconsistent, disproportionate, and seem to fall under party lines. those on the 'liberal' side, punishment is swift - jobs are lost, reputations tarnished and those on the right crow over victories. on the other side - a veritable shit storm he said/she said bullshit, misinformation, lies and character assassination resulting in a possibly rapey supreme court justice with any notion of justice for all lies dead under a torrent of shit. im not sure how any this helps those who been sexually assaulted in way. those were accused in this way are a tiny fraction of society - public figures. a list celebs slap themselves on the back as they claim they helping change society for better, oblivious to the world outside of hollywood. meanwhile ted from accounts just coped a feel of the new intern and bev from hr, whose being sexually harrassed by her supervisor, is a lying dumb slut and so ugly she should flattered by the abuse and ive just photoshopped her face onto a dogging video and sent it to her grandmother AMassiveGay (talk) 10:07, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

The issue I have with this is that people here and else where just act like false rape is a non issue and they ignore it ever happens. Like even the moron that is TJ Kirk knows of TEN cases. AT the very least 20% of all rape accusations are false and to ignore that is dishonest from "Skeptics"TheDarkMaster2 (talk) 12:16, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
see, what you've done there is mistaken a comedian for a source of statistical data. you'll probably what to look official from prosecutors offices of kind. dunno what you'd call them in the us. be aware though, they generally arnt in the format of an stand up routine, so you might want brush up what what numbers and words are. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:27, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
"Innocent until proven guilty is a bit too much to ask for in today's world." So according to you, for the sake of example, if I say that my physics professor raped me when, 20 years ago, I met him privately in his office to ask about some homeworks, and no other witnesses were there, now the poor man should prove that he is innocence otherwise he will be put in jail? -Lankaster (talk) 12:29, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
i may be mistaken, but i believe that was said with an air of exasperation. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:35, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
"Innocent until proven guilty is a bit too much to ask for in today's world." Huh? It should be the standard. If you throw it away, you will surely get a society of paranoia and mistrust, where mere allegations can ruin people's lives. Evidence is key. Nerd (talk) 14:03, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Read what I said before, Jesus Christ some of you are unbelievably thick and I come to this site to get away from this kind of dumb shit. We're living in an era rape victims are put through the gauntlet and even then, they'll either be humiliated in court, their attacker probably won't face any serious time, or both. Cosby got away with his shit for years even when his victims accused him decades earlier, and it took years to put him away, and the sad thing is, his sentence is FAR too light. There's a good chance he won't live to see the end of it, but still. And that's only for big time publicized cases. Most everyday normal folks don't have a platform to publicly denounce their attackers and make them see justice.
And fucking lawl@Lankaster's example. Worst argument ever. Next you're gonna tell me that Larry Nassar's victims are lying little bitches who wanted him inside them and putting him away was just wrong like omg
PS. Here's a basic guide on rape stats you chumps. But please do go on about how you're so objective and rational while pretending the playing ground is neutral. James Earl Cash (talk) 17:06, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
what is the point you are making here? is that not enough cases result in a conviction or enough reported? its dreadful, id agree something must be done. the two examples you mention, cosby and nassar, they were reported. they were investigated. they were convicted. in cosbys case social media was instrumental. how many more social media examples ended with conviction? or trial? or even reported? weinstein might but still early days. it hasnt helped. accusations that appear in social media have not helped and at this point have made things worse. when it did work, only with public figures. it was never an answer. legal reforms are likely required, but involves expertise and political will - and social medias not exactly been helpful there. hashtags are great for showing your tough on crime credentials but it wont change systemic problems, and im not sure how much tougher a sentence can be if it means you will die in prison. cryogenics perhaps? #metoo probably emboldened christine blasey ford to come forward, and her treatment since will probably deter many more. louis ck is back at work and #metoo has just become noise, as i think i said it would when this all started AMassiveGay (talk) 19:16, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Yep, you summed it up perfectly. All that and more is why presuming innocence until proven guilty is at best misguided, and at worst, is completely full of it when it comes to rape and similar cases. On a similar note, Pope Francis said he'd clean things up with the pedoshit priests among other things and the media ate up every word of it but years later, the church is still a mess. James Earl Cash (talk) 19:34, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
but how does that help? catholic priest werent protected by presumption of innocence, they were protected by massive cover ups. there are huge problems with historical cases - absence of phsyical evidence, imperfect memory that have be overcome, that make conviction difficult or unsafe. its always been a problem because of the nature of the crime and legal limitations such as statutes of limitation, often with historical cases, victims are afflicted with shame, guilt, unaware that at the time what was happening was a crime - i believe in the uk it was altered to account for such cases. im not sure this is the problem here, specifically. recent crimes - they may have same sense of shame, of guilt, how they are treated within the justice system, how their community treats them, the toxicity of the internet. i have no answer for this. is societal issues. its systemic issues. these are not quick fixes. lowering the burden of guilt wont help reporting rates when inevitable miscarraiges occur and it wont help perception of victims by their communities. rape produces a visceral disgust, or should, in decent folk, but we cannot allow that colour our judgement. its always going to be traumatic for the victim, whatever system is in. so is decades of wrongful conviction and theres no shortage of them already. i dont know. maybe we should all do a bet less raping? you'd think that wouldnt be unreasonable, but in this climate...AMassiveGay (talk) 20:43, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Well, I mean the figure of actually identified false rapes is so small they're practically insignificant, and that's not even getting into how most rapes aren't even reported in the first place. James Earl Cash (talk) 20:46, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Innocent until proven guilty is supposed to be the base line. But that's not "progressive enough" Belive women don't you know? NO! If there's nno evidence to prove he raped you he should get let off the hookTheDarkMaster2 (talk) 12:48, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
even when i can vaguely agree with what i think you trying to say, you frame in such a way that i hope you arent allowed sharp objects or even those plastic scissors that cant anything. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:33, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Why are you such a douche t people who otherwise agree with you. You need to learn to look past superficial shit. This is just like the BLM vs ALM debate. You harass people and you get surprised when racist BS like The Proud boys show up. You make your own monsters dude.TheDarkMaster2 (talk) 14:23, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
the presume of innocence bit is grand, but when you pair with some pretty awful views in a pretty...lets just say strident fashion - it wins you no friends. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:52, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Sure, now that Avenatti, Mueller, and Cory Booger are accused of rape all of a sudden there's a presumption of innocence. RobSmithGrab 'em by the nob! Nobs for Mod! 15:38, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Sources Rob, or those claims aren't worth jack shit. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:01, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Pretty sure Mueller actually told the FBI to investigate the fuck out of him, the clown that is Jacob Wohl notwithstanding.
but please go on, regale me with your sophisticated outlook on things. I'm watching this with a sort of giddy masochistic anticipation I haven't felt in years. James Earl Cash (talk) 17:06, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

That all rape victims should be believed is mainly about how cops immediatly starts questioning anybody reporting a rape. It's not really about the persecution. And TheDarkMaster2 still has to provide any reliable source showing more than 20% of rape accusations are false. I mean, he can't, but he threw that number out and nobody challenged it. Dendlai (talk) 17:44, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Okay to clarify I CAN, it just takes me a while to respond to three people white knighting at the same time. I looked over a dozen different sources and they ranged from 20-70% I was giving you the benefit of the doubt and went with the lowest widely accepted amount which is 20%. That's not an insignificant amount, and there's probably a higher percentage.TheDarkMaster2 (talk) 18:34, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
what are those dozens of different sources? I looked over a dozen different sources and it funnily contradicts everything you say weirdly enough (because I don't actually have to link anything or actually prove my claims). Burden of proof is on you, link the damn things. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓(T|C) 18:46, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

"Why are you such a douche t people who otherwise agree with you."

Everyone's being a "douche" to you. You might need to engage in self-reflection why people are acting in a way you don't like. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 17:43, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
I was once like you thinking I was better than everyone else because I was woke and a feminist. I got betterTheDarkMaster2 (talk) 18:34, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
You're still thinking you're better than everyone else, just in a different political wing. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓(T|C) 18:46, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
At least I try not tooTheDarkMaster2 (talk) 12:50, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
if it helps i am better than all of you, and i have lovely hair AMassiveGay (talk) 15:13, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Message to the bots[edit]

Your kind offers as to the chaps at RW are, no doubt, fully appreciated, but tend to be promptly deflated (a problem you claim to be solving for a certain body part).

You are invited to contribute to the RationalWiki Jack D. Ripper Research Fund - which will keep RW going for longer and will enable your 'post' to stay up longer. Anna Livia (talk) 12:54, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Yolol. BEST FREE VIAGRA SILDENAFIL REVATIO FOR PENIS HELP!!! — Dysk (contribs) 23:13, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

How terrorism works: my opinion and in a simple sense[edit]

My view is that terrorism is using fear to get what you want. Any thoughts? This message is approved by the RZ94for moderator committee --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 14:50, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

That is a really good definition and I feel people need to realize that. Though I also find it weird that groups that terrorize people like Antifa aren't labeled as terror groups by the SPLCTheDarkMaster2 (talk) 15:10, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
We already have an effective definition of terrorism. Using violence to attempt to effect political change(with an implicit understanding by most people that war is a separate category). I'm not sure why an organization that tracks hate groups would need to list non-hate groups that idiots think are terrorists. You've gotta have a pretty broken brain to think the two are the same. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:30, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't personally think Antifa is close to extreme enough to be considered terrorists. But they're a political protest group that's committed violence and you did just define terrorism as "using violence to attempt to effect political change" so... (talk) 15:40, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Scope and scale, buddy. They, what? Decked a grand total of two people? Who were both pitching literal genocide at the time? "Normal" "center" right politics has a much stronger claim to being terrorists, hell, I got passed today by a car with one of those dumbass "liberal hunting permit" stickers. (also, I'm all for genuine terrorism is the demonstrable alternative is nazism, just to ballpark my perspective). ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:50, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Alt-right fuckers who straight up murdered someone at their rally in August last year outright came out and said they didn't gather this year because they were scared shitless of Antifa.
But continue to talk more and more with your both sides rhetoric BoN. James Earl Cash (talk) 17:08, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
It's not "weird" that antifa isn't labeled as a terror group by the SPLC. Unlike the alt-right, they aren't united by an ideology that promotes killing specific races of people. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓(T|C) 17:38, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Well.. I don't think that's the greatest definition ever. What if I'm a 10 year old playground bully and I threaten to beat you up if you don't give me your lunch money? Well you're afraid, and you give me the money. Am I a terrorist? No. That's ridiculous. The US defines terrorism as "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant [read: civilian] targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents," which I personally think is better than your definition. Your definition is far too broad. Is a father who uses the fear of physical abuse to get his children to clean the house a terrorist? No. He's abusive. But under your definition he's a terrorist. And what level of fear are we talking about? Let's say that I'm afraid my breath is bad today and my girlfriend uses that fear to get me to chew some gum. Is my girlfriend then a terrorist? Of course not. That's absurd.
Why is the US's definition better than yours? It's specific, isn't too broad, and allows for all kinds of terrorism. Mafia uses their power to inspire fear in a politician so that he backs out of an election race? Terrorism. Bully using fear to get lunch money? Not terrorism. ISIL using a suicide bombing to inspire fear in people and gain political influence? Terrorism. Mom using fear of the monsters in your closet to get you to stay in bed at night? Not terrorism. I have been known to impulse buy books 16:36, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
"My view is that terrorism is using fear to get what you want. Any thoughts?" It's a bit narrow in scope and utterly ignorant of terrorism in it's entire broad scope, sure the IRA wanted equal rights for Catholics in Northern Ireland and were left with NO RECOURSE but to violence in order to obtain it, although it is debatable if they have managed to obtain what they sought short of a unified Republic (For more see this years Reith Lectures episode 3 was recorded in Belfast. Likewise Umkhonto we Sizwe did indeed use violence to get what they wanted, but they too had NO RECOURSE. There's something you seem to be missing in your viewpoint of what terrorism and it's proponents seek. Although in the US, the more worrying Terror organizations are very much on the extreme far right and have an obsession with white nationalism, a desire to overthrow the state and establish an ethno state under their own ideals (Ruby Ridge, Unabomber)

And as for claiming antifa are a terror group, Christ on a crutch are you for real? Cardinal Chang (talk) 19:05, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Antifa is a terrorist group. They commit violent crimes, destroy property and promote terror. If your gonna tell me a bunch of jackasses with tiki torches protesting the censorship of history is a terrorist group then so is the larger, more violent AntifaTheDarkMaster2 (talk) 14:10, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Bahahahahahahaha, your own words describe them better than "Terrorist" They are criminals, possibly even hooligans with a moral compass that may be askew to your own. But they are most certainly not a terrorist organisation. Take it from someone who grew up with the constant threat of terrorism, they ain't it. Cardinal Chang (talk) 16:12, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Oh by the way, no one is calling "a bunch of jackasses with tiki torches protesting the censorship of history" terrorists. You might want to take a more indepth look into your own country's past (I'm assuming from your comments that you're an American.) Let's see, The Order vs Antifa? Which one fits any criteria for a terrorist organisation? Here's a clue, the leader of one caused his own death due to poorly stored ordinance in an armed stand off with state police. Cardinal Chang (talk) 19:02, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
where did you grow up that a constant threat of terrorism? i got the impression you were from wales AMassiveGay (talk) 17:57, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Grew up in Monaghan. Had to deal with cross border activities, British army check points nearby and this colossal shit pile https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dublin_and_Monaghan_bombings Cardinal Chang (talk) 18:48, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
that certainly would've had more of tangible threat than the valleys. at first glance it looked a little similar to a lad in a small village with a thug life tattoo AMassiveGay (talk) 20:50, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Mind you I've still to this day no idea what Mudiad Amddiffyn Cymru were about. Or if they were serious. They did scare the bejaysus out of the IRA during an operation to steal Gelignite, it was unstable and had to be dumped in a river. Cardinal Chang (talk) 19:11, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
the no recourse aspect mention makes it sound like they have no other option, when often when there is no recourse its because no one wants what they are selling - you could just stay home. the noncombatant thing has plenty of wriggle room. whatabout non military targets that prop up the thing they are against? military targets just too strong/well defended? or just high numbers of civilians near the intended target - collateral damage from a drone strike or bombing run, from a terrorist cell? indescriminate killers. unless they achieve their aim then our brave freedom fighters had to make tough choices. such definitions are great for keeping things like the campaign for real ale off peoples watchlists, but if you piss of the wrong government, drones will pop up now and again. conversely, you make the right noises, the i heart uncle sam tshirts that came in the last arms shipment will look boss when you machete that guys head off on youtube. its a murky worldAMassiveGay (talk) 19:54, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Of course it's all perspective. One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. But in relation to no recourse, Bloody Sunday and the Ballymurphy massacre somewhat undermined any ability to peacefully protest. And as for Umkhonto we Sizwe, Mandela himself said he had not other means of protest left other than Spearing the Nation. But were the actions of Irgun justified? Especially in light of the continuing troubles? We have a broad definition of what terrorism is, which is unfortunate. The IRA have no comparisons to ISIS. Nor do CAAT have any relatable ideologies with The Silent Brotherhood, (Although bizarrely members of CAAT were arrested under UK Terrorism laws at a protest outside an arms fair in Londons Docklands area in 2003.) Cardinal Chang (talk) 20:16, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Which IRA? There have been multiple groups throughout history that have used the banner of the Irish Republican Army, including several more recent groups who most definitely count as terrorists. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:22, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Provisional, Continuation, Real are rightly considered terrorist organisations. And considering their actions of drug dealing, gun running and punishment beatings (knee capping)since The Good Friday agreement, it would be better described as organised crime groups Cardinal Chang (talk) 19:06, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Article idea(it might exist already)[edit]

I want to pitch an article idea, but also first check that no one has already done it or something similar. I want to do a side by side of commonly misused and abused scientific jargon in woo with real definition on left, woowoo bullshit meaning on the right. You know energy="a measure of potential, in various forms, to do work" vs "something you feel". Was thinking as a title "Quacktionary", though not really focusing specifically on medical words.

So, 3 questions for why I'm bringing it to the bar and not just doing it: 1. Does it already exist under some name I can't find? 2. Is there a better name? 3. Any favorites I should include(my shortlist now is just energy, quantum, consciousness, and force). ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:37, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't know if it already exists, but I think a workable title might be "List of commonly abused scientific terminology" or something along those lines. I'd also add "field," "theory," "natural," and "chemical" to your list. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 19:57, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
It doesn't seem to be made. I've looked at Category:Glossaries and Category:Lists but neither have an article that's like the one you proposed. I'm not sure about "Quacktionary" but what about something like Woo Glossary? Oh, and some of my proposed words are "detox", "boosts immune system", "vibrations", just off the top of my head. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 19:57, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Probably instead of "detox" I'll go with "toxin" because that has a scientific definition, and a woo use. Vibrations, yes. Also occurring to me now: entropy. You like very to-the-point titles, huh? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:00, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Oh, also, deuce, I'm not familiar with the quacky use of "field". What kinds of woo peddlers use it and how? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:02, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
I like "to the point" titles because it'll make it easier to refer to in the future. Quacktionary has a nice ring, but I'm not sure if that's used already. But when it comes to names, I don't think we should do a lot of effort coming up with cute names. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 20:07, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
so we sort of have an article already, I didn't think to search google rather than RW search. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:12, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
@Ikanreed When I said "field" I mean like this. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 21:18, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Neat. I'm trying to think of how you differentiate, because their dumbass definition could plausibly be described with a vector field. It wouldn't do anything or have any effect, but descriptively, you could take what they've written, full-on bullshit, and convert it to a mathematical description of a "field". hm. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:22, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Sounds like a good project to me. "Healing" is another term to add. The naturopathy pages has a bunch of quack therapies, probably with only one with an actual medicine counterpart: electrotherapy. Radiation therapy was once used by quacks for naturopathy, now thanks to regulation only by MDs (if you exclude the diagnostic X-rays that chiropractors routinely to "visualize" their subluxations). Bongolian (talk) 21:37, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

@Ikanreed Have you come across the pages technobabble and quantum physics terms? Nerd (talk) 23:07, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm surprised none of you have suggested "energy" yet... ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:10, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie That page exists, but could use a lot more freedom work, no pun intended. Nerd (talk) 23:18, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
That was in my initial shortlist. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 00:00, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorta similar to something BadPiggies has been working on, but with woo instead of conservatives. (talk) 00:49, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

This is fucking disturbing[edit]

TVTrope's page on "Louder with Crowder" What I read was complete fucking worship of the alt-right Klansman in disguise Steven Crowder, mentioning how "Crowder systematically deconstructs the 'myth' of rape culture," and as I read the page expecting to find at least something critical of him, or more nuanced than blind hero worship consistently lavishing praise upon this douche bag it struck me, that TVTropes pages are often created and solely maintained by a small number of drooling fanboys, especially for smaller works, and that the larger works featured on TVTropes tend to be more reliable than a page on some relatively obscure Youtube alt-right fuck.

More evidence that this page doesn't get much traffic is that such drivel will usually be hastily rewritten in order to avoid flame wars, known as the "Rule of Cautious Editing Judgement", and while TVTropes in general is a decent source the synopsis RW provided of it is starting to ring true. This screed has been brought to you by RationalWiki's most obscure editor, that is, (see sig).--Palaeonictis (talk) 23:13, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

i mean it's the nature of small wikis and small topics that only a small number of folks will care. tvtropes has generally seemed pretty center-left in my readings, tho FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 23:30, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
TV Tropes is a lot of fun to read on the side, but holy fuck that site always was dogshit, and even now after a purge of pedo-activism and pages glorifying incest and whatnot, the same problems still apply. James Earl Cash (talk) 23:33, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
TV Tropes is bad. Most of the internet is bad. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 23:59, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
YouTube 'celebrities' turn out to have the same adoring fans regular celebrities have, with similarly non-existent justification. *shrugs* (Btw "Klansman in disguise" seems a bit much. O.O) (talk) 01:31, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Louder with Crowder seems a bit out there. Way out there is more accurate. Plenty of homophobia to go around. That is certain. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:58, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
"TVTrope's page on "Louder with Crowder" What I read was complete fucking worship of the alt-right Klansman in disguise Steven Crowder, mentioning how "Crowder systematically deconstructs the 'myth' of rape culture,""
I cannot find the sentence you provided in quote marks at the link you also provided. The only sentences with the word "rape" are:
"Aside Glance: In "Rape Culture Is a Myth: Change My Mind", Crowder does a mischievous eyebrow-raising glance at one of the cameras while pretending he doesn't even know who Brett Kavanaugh is." "Obfuscating Stupidity: In "Rape Culture Is a Myth: Change My Mind", Crowder pretended to be much more ignorant on the issue than his opponents to feed them their own rope before taking apart their arguments." "Subverted Kids Show: They parodied political messaging aimed at children by depicting kid's shows such as Sesame Street, Winnie-the-Pooh, and The Flintstones propagating banning knives to combat terrorism, paranoia about rape culture, and gender being completely divorced from biology." "Windmill Political: In the "Male Privilege is a Myth" segment of Change My Mind, this is referenced by name when Crowder pointed out to a particularly loudmouthed college student who was accusing him of supporting "rape culture" that he was fighting windmills because Crowder already thinks that rape is horrible."
These are all descriptions of TV tropes and neither support nor oppose Crowder political views. -Lankaster (talk) 09:05, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
How dare someone not blindly hate Steven CrowderTheDarkMaster2 (talk) 13:36, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
They might dare to if they're a mindless being with only the ability to respond to stimuli by saying "lol owned" without ever actually thinking at all. It's possible to be that broken, I guess. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:13, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Account Security[edit]

For those people who don't give a crap what happens on Wikipedia, you might not have spotted that some vandals have built a script to hack admin account passwords on wiki based sites. They used it to hack a dozen admin accounts and post porn on the en-wiki mainpage. Basically it is a very simple script that can crack a short password in a few hours on any wiki based site, such as this one.

If everyone could make sure their password is at least ten characters long that will make you reasonably safe from the script kiddies. If you have an account on Wikipedia, consider changing your password as an unknown number of accounts are still comprised there. Please note that if your password is a single dictionary word or common name it can be cracked very much quicker. For advice on picking a secure password, please see this guide. — Dysk (contribs) 15:55, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up.--Don Juan (talk) 18:23, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
That miiight be something put-on-front-page-so-it-isn't-missed-worthy if you ask me. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 19:06, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Who wants to play a game of Wiki-Idiot to decide which one of us Techs are going to be the one to put the warning up? The Tech who is voted to be the biggest idiot wins.--Don Juan (talk) 19:59, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
I stuck it in the holydaze template. There is no way it's going on the sitenotice. — Dysk (contribs) 15:50, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
I noticed, I "congratulated" you on the template's talk page. - Jackass (Bleed me dry) 10:55 AM, 11/28/18 EST

Social Credit System (China)[edit]

I have created a page on the Social Credit System, which goes under the "Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism" purpose of RW. If someone is interested, there's a lot of work to be done. -Lankaster (talk) 15:55, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I could dig something up on this, if I`m sufficiently motivated. When I get heavily interested in a page I usually edit it in sporadic waves, because due to my ADHD I have a really low attention span, I`m like a rat on speed off my meds.--Don Juan (talk) 21:39, 27 November 2018 (UTC)


We're all gonna ascend to Reaperdom, motherfuckers! [2] Note: This is something only Mass Effect fans will get.--Don Juan (talk) 20:26, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Does continuing to edit make sense?[edit]

So I was reading the last reply on the talk page of Rationalization and I realized that it's more than 4 days that I'm stuck on a really simple thing, that is, if a quote is or is not an example of rationalization. I tried my best to explain my reasons, but what I got was: (1) insults from a user who constantly target me (moderators are OK with that) and indeed joined the conversation just to be against me, (2) hearing the same point repeated again, and again, ... continuing to ignore my first rebuttal, (3) seeing the conversation being derailed by the same user who constantly target me because he started a flame with another user, (4) insults even from a user who essentially agree that there's something wrong with the quote. (Notice that three other people recognized that I had a point.)

And this is the best case scenario, because I decided to not edit the quote on the page. Otherwise my edits would had been reverted without explanation, to avoid edit wars I would had to call moderators, who of course are to busy to look in details, and nothing get solved.

Since the RationalWiki:Community Standards says "We prefer and encourage that users and editors become a part of the community" but everything has been done to show me that I am persona non grata and to make extremely difficult to me to do even the simplest edit, I ask to you:

Should I continue to edit RW pages or it does not make sense anymore?

-Lankaster (talk) 22:57, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Stop whining. You're not a persona non grata, you're just an obnoxious editor with sensitivity issues. Everyone's contributions matter. How often do you think I get attention? Go look over at my talk page if you think I`m a bigshot here.--Don Juan (talk) 23:00, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Beautiful... but how does this solve the problem that I cannot make the smallest edit even after 4 days of discussion on a talk page? And don't tell me that it's the same for every user here, because I don't see everyone being followed by someone else who constantly reverts his edits without explanation. -Lankaster (talk) 23:25, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
What editor who's been stalking you? This is something that should be brought up at the Coop, not here. - Lord Byron (Stab me) 18:32, 11/27/18 (EST)
See. -Lankaster (talk) 09:09, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Okay, I apologize for the insult and will take immediate action.--Don Juan (talk) 11:00, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
I banned him for 3 days, hopefully that'll solve the problem.--Don Juan (talk) 11:03, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
@Don Juan You did but then you unblocked him less than one hour later, what is happening? -Lankaster (talk) 13:29, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
I looked into it, and honestly without community consensus there's not much I can do. You want to be demoted?--Don Juan (talk) 13:32, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Furthermore, I`m a Tech, not a Mod, so when it comes to community policing I can't do shit. Well, I have pretty much all the powers a Mod has, and more, but part of the job requirement is to not engage in community policing and to not abuse the power, so I won't do either. - Got milk? (Piss on me, baby!) 8:56 AM, 11/28/18 EST
If Lankaster's edits are bad, then it should not be the same one or two users who revert his edits. That is suspicious in itself when it happens more than a couple of times. Mr. X can lord it over an article or two, but nobody should take in upon themselves to contest every edit of a single person in many articles. That is harassment. It seems that there is an attitude here that some people can do no wrong. That's OK if you want a shitty wiki.Ariel31459 (talk) 15:14, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Which people can do no wrong? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:02, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
@Don Juan OK, now I understand: you wanted to help but then you realized that you cannot make such block. Thanks anyway. -Lankaster (talk) 16:13, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
"It seems that there is an attitude here that some people can do no wrong." Exactly, and to answer to @Ikanreed's question, since I joined RW I saw all kind of bad behaviors from James Earl Cash, and I never saw a moderator doing something about it. On the contrary, I moderator explicitly told me that James Earl Cash has better reputation than me, and hence we are judged differently. -Lankaster (talk) 16:24, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, the truth is you got off with a very bad first impression from some of your early edits. Some of the things you were doing were pretty shit. I should know; I was there. But a reputation is not permanent or unfixable. Considering I'm on the "other side" from you in some ways, I'm probably not the best source for this advice, but I'll still share my thoughts. 1. You've got an issue with tendentiousness, by which I don't really mean just biased, but picking the same few subject areas and making the same kind of edits. Broaden your horizons a bit. Click random article, there's probably something that could be fixed or improved. Most of my non-revert mainspace edits come from that. 2. Chat a bit. I'm annoying, argumentative, and coarse, but I still like talking with people about things more than not, and I think it's good for me here? Probably? 3. The most important thing, and something I still try and fail(a lot) at: it's good to be wrong. To go "oh shit, yeah I got that completely off". It matters less for getting along, and more for trying to be your best self. Being wrong means you learned something new and cool. And I hate telling that to people I disagree with so often, because it sounds like "just accept I'm right", but it's so often missing. Our reputations as "smart people"(and everyone here is the kind of nerd who thinks they're smart) seem to hinge on being seen as right, so instinctively we protect it.
I dunno, rambled a bit there, but it's not as bad or dark as it seems. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:37, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── That's actually good advice from @Ikanreed, @Lankaster. Don't worry too much that people disagree with you. It's OK for you, or anyone else, to be wrong. Like I said, relax! Nerd (talk) 16:44, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

JEC is being an ass. Besides, I've seen worse users, though I will refrain from naming names. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:40, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
@Ikanreed "1. You've got an issue with tendentiousness [...] picking the same few subject areas and making the same kind of edits." Yes, because those are the subjects that interest me. I don't see how this should be an issue as far as my edits are valid.
"2. Chat a bit." I was extremely active on talk pages... maybe you mean something else.
"3. The most important thing [...] it's good to be wrong." I agree with what you are saying, but I don't see how this applies when my edits are reverted without motivations. If there is some kind of stubbornness, it's not coming from me...
@Nerd "Don't worry too much [...] Like I said, relax!" I understand that you two are writing with good intentions, but you are missing the point: It's not that I am angry, offended, or similar. It's that, because of how things are handled, editing has been made almost impossible for me.
Take this last case of the talk page of Rationalization. I read the article (by the way, it's not one of the articles I usually edit) and I found that the first quote was not appropriate. Instead of removing it, I asked explanations on the talk page. First, James reply just to be against me, without making any contribute. Ariel agreed essentially with my point, and James attacked us both. Then DuceMoosolini said the quote was appropriate because was about making excuses/justification, and he reiterated this thing hundred of times always ignoring me question about where, exactly, the quote spoke of excuses (spoiler: nowhere). 4 days have passed and the page is the same. And that's a page on a topic which shouldn't be anyway controversial! Don't let me tell you about pages on living people... -Lankaster (talk) 18:11, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
The case of the Rationalization article is a good example. Who really gives a shit which examples are used? Why a fucking conflict? Someone accused Lankaster of being obnoxious and over-sensitive. You can tell a lot about yourself by whether or not you noticed the statement is an ironic oxymoron.Ariel31459 (talk) 18:47, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
I have reverted your edits a grand total of zero times since that coop case and you're still pissing and moaning about a whole lot of nothing. I've more or less quit this place since the mods are unable or unwilling to deal with the scum and villainy that absolutely do not belong here, but I keep checking in for shits and giggles, and man oh man, do I see now I was right to quit. Took me long enough, but better late than never. Seeing any one of you take this guy's word at face value, especially those of you who should know better, is the gift I didn't know I needed in my life.
Of course, now that I see RWRW is appearing to be a winner of the mod election, yep, hindsight is deffo 20/20. James Earl Cash (talk) 19:15, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
I didn't know the actual facts of the situation, and promptly unbanned you once I realized that he really was just being an oversensitive prick.--Don Juan (talk) 19:22, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
How dare you object about how I dared to object to how you dared to revert the edit that I dared to make. You're being completely unreasonable about how I'm being completely unreasonable about how you're being completely unreasonable about ... a Barack Obama quote? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:30, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Yup, that pretty much sums it up.--Don Juan (talk) 19:53, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
@Ariel31459 "Who really gives a shit which examples are used?" I don't get your point. If an incorrect example is used, then editors should care to fix that.
@Don Juan "I didn't know the actual facts of the situation, and promptly unbanned you once I realized that he really was just being an oversensitive prick." That's not what you told me.
@James Earl Cash "I've more or less quit this place since the mods are unable or unwilling to deal with the scum and villainy that absolutely do not belong here" Almost every edit and reversion you wanted to make has been accepted, and people are stopping to edit because of your behavior. Apparently that's not enough and you want every "villain" (especially fascists) who disagrees with you to be banned so that you can rule RW alone... -Lankaster (talk) 20:02, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────The whole Obama thing is where I grew sick of your conflict. If I did win the election, I REALLY am going to step up efforts to stop stupid, STUPID conflicts like that. RoninMacbeth (talk) 20:11, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

You can say how. Votes are closed, you don't risk to lose any voters. -Lankaster (talk) 20:14, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
@Lankaster I suggest any good example should be acceptable. Even if the one you complained about were a good one (it is not the best) who cares what it is replaced with as long as it is reasonably correct? That was my point. How about we replace all exemplary quotes once a month like department store inventories? Ariel31459 (talk) 20:23, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
@RoninMacbeth That was one stupid conflict. I entered it only to express that other better examples could be found. You can count on me to cooperate with the new moderation group. (congrats). Ariel31459 (talk) 20:30, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
"who cares what it is replaced with as long as it is reasonably correct?" OK, then I agree. But, for some reasons, for someone it's extremely important that such specific quote of Obama is on the page, while the quote from "The Fox and the grapes" should be removed as quick as possible. -Lankaster (talk) 20:34, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
"Apparently that's not enough and you want every "villain" (especially fascists) who disagrees with you to be banned so that you can rule RW alone..." is this guy for real
also lawl@the idea of Ariel cooperating with anybody. Anyone who buys that shit, I have a bridge to sell you. James Earl Cash (talk) 21:41, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
You could try. First aquire a bridge, then we'll talk.Ariel31459 (talk) 22:12, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
The Eiffel Tower is available for sale if you wanna buy it. Come over to my talk-page and we'll negotiate pricing.--Don Juan (talk) 22:43, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Do you accept checks on the Grand Banks of New Foundland?Ariel31459 (talk) 23:18, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Are some of the old guard returning?[edit]

I've been on this wiki since November of 2014, and recently when I cared enough to stop minding my own business on this wiki (mostly editing the Annotated Bible project we've got here, I did that for about, I don't know, almost a year straight) I noticed that some old friends had returned, among them being Ace, or did they ever really leave in the first place? RW Veteran Human hasn't edited in over a year now, and is still a member of the Board of Trustees, so I guess she's still tangentially involved with this wretched hive of scum and villainy I am all too proud to be part of. Nostalgia, perhaps? - Don Julio (Feed me), 11/27/18, 18:28 PM, (EST)

Ace is an ancient cairn erected by a long-dead culture. No one knows where he came from or where he went. Prehistoric guard. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:46, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Like Stonehenge, Ace stands guard as a silent monument to a once glorious civilization that has long since been reduced to dust, Ace and Stonehenge are both venerable elder statesmen, with both bearing witness to both the march of time and the glory of the ancients.--Don Juan (talk) 17:00, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Some of us have kept a watching brief all the time. Not saying much but watching … always watching …Keepthe faith 18:55, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
"Nations rise and fall, stars are born and then they die, but I will stand here on silent vigil, forevermore." - The Motto of the Prehistoric Guard--Don Juan (talk) 19:01, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Time Zone[edit]

What time zone is Rational Wiki on?Doublethink (talk) 02:09, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

You will probably want to ask Rod Serling about that. Well, you can't, because he's dead. Or is he? Kencolt (talk) 02:32, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
The fact that it says UTC immediately after your post should be a clue. --Annanoon (talk) 09:31, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Oh, thanks I'm an idiot.Doublethink (talk) 17:54, 29 November 2018 (UTC)


What do you do if you forget your account password?Doublethink (talk) 05:42, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Create a new account. (If you included an email address when you registered you can Special:PasswordReset). --Annanoon (talk) 09:33, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
You can also set an email address in preferences now if you forgot to include one on sign-up. — Dysk (contribs) 12:00, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Lovely Lass Lessens Liberal Locations Lacking Luna[edit]

I'll just dive right into it: I'm (really) new here, and I just wanted to say hi, introduce myself, and generally make myself known here. I've been an avid reader of this site for years, long enough that I don't remember when I first found it. If my username doesn't suffice, y'all can feel free to call me Luna if you'd like. Anyways, it's nice to meet y'all, and I hope this all goes well! You Won't BELIEVE What Astronomers Found In This Neutron Star! - Number Four WILL Shock You! 08:23, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

(In hindsight, I realised the title's a little awkward, but the pursuit of alliteration is the pursuit of perfection.)You Won't BELIEVE What Astronomers Found In This Neutron Star! - Number Four WILL Shock You! 15:13, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Welcome aboard! RoninMacbeth (talk) 16:32, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Nuclear pasta sounds delicious. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 20:17, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Well, if you're somehow able to eat neutron stars on a casual basis, well, more power to ya. You Won't BELIEVE What Astronomers Found In This Neutron Star! - Number Four WILL Shock You! 20:39, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Good for building mass. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:44, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Crackpot cosmological hypothesis: Most novae are caused not by neutron stars accreting mass in the usual way, but instead by swarms of dieters trying to eat the star all piling up on it until it hits 1.44 solar masses, half of which is smushed dieters. You Won't BELIEVE What Astronomers Found In This Neutron Star! - Number Four WILL Shock You! 02:25, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Mod Election[edit]

The final results are now confirmed. I have appointed the winners (including the dreaded RWRW) to moderators by giving the the mod perm. I haven't done anything about the fact some previous mods still have mod perms. For fun, I also ranked the candidates by popularity. — Dysk (contribs) 13:25, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

That's unfortunate, but democracy never did work. Lord Aeonian (talk) 16:32, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Cheer up![edit]

It will soon be the sales - and then you can celebrate Christmas a second time on January 7th. (talk) 17:08, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

So you're saying the war on christmas not only has to get longer before christmas, but now after as well? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:21, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
We will meet you on the field of battle, and we will continue our efforts to push you and your holiday back to December!!! ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:43, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
FOR CHRISTMAS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111!!!1!--Don Juan (talk) 18:08, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
A variant on the 'Did William Shakespeare and Miguel de Cervantes die on the same day' question. (talk) 18:13, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
On the battlefield the two armies met, they did, aye, each man covered in red and gore, as they ready their candy-cane blades, to settle an age-old dispute: Will Christmas Cheer last forevermore, or will the Cheer of Christmas be replaced by the grim sorrow of the atheist's revenge for the centuries of horrors inflicted by religion. <cue epic rock solo as the two armies duke it out on the battlefield>--Don Juan (talk) 19:05, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Today at Walmart I told the cashier Merry Christmas. She said, "Happy Holidays, ma'am, I smiled and said "You don't have to be afraid anymore. President Trump gave us Christmas back" she started crying tears of joy and said "Merry Christmas" and then everyone in the store applauded👏👏👏🤗 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 19:56, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
On that battlefield of yore, where the two armies met, covered in blood and gore... only the dead will celebrate, forevermore.--Don Juan (talk) 20:24, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Happy Holidays is not new. Not sure how happy holidays is offensive. Christianity is not the only group with holidays in December. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 21:33, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, but-but-bbbuttt Christian nation, persecution of Christians, War on Christmas.... You know what, making those idiots sound as stupid as they really are is just not worth the effort.--Don Juan (talk) 22:10, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
All that matters to me is that, while this meaningless and pointless battle of Pro vs Anti-Christmas ensues once again, it distracts from the slow but inevitable rise of St. Swithin's Day as the holiday supreme.
I'll admit I really haven't any idea what the hell St. Swithin's Day is, except that rain is involved, and Winchester Cathedral. And possibly jelly babies. But it would at least take place in June, and be warmer. Kencolt (talk) 00:37, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
St Swithin's Day is months away, surely you mean the Feast of St StephenWikipedia. (Which can be celebrated on the 26th or 27th of December depending on your opinion on whether leavened or unleavened bread should be used for the eucharist.) Bonus St Stephen's day fact from Wikipedia: 'One ancient Welsh custom, discontinued in the 19th century, included bleeding of livestock and "holming" by beating with holly branches of late risers and female servants. The ceremony reputedly brought good luck.' --Annanoon (talk) 09:30, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Reminds me of Bolludagur in Iceland. https://is.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolludagur Cardinal Chang (talk) 11:13, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Of course it's months away. That's the idea. I'm tired of going shopping in the rain and occasional snow. I want to be exploited at the beach surrounded by swimsuits for once.Kencolt (talk) 05:23, 30 November 2018 (UTC)



All midwinter festivals are rip-offs of those held in Doggerland/Skara Brae. (talk) 19:16, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

AMERICA, FUCK YEAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!--Don Juan (talk) 22:21, 29 November 2018 (UTC)


I was stalking "tracking" certain old RW users when I noticed a user by the name of "Mei" and noticed that they were particularly popular in the early days of our glorious kingdom, and that one day they disappeared. Whatever happened to them?--Don Juan (talk) 21:28, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Do you seriously think people stopping having this website as a hobby is weird and needs further explanation? Almost everyone does at some point. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:54, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Mei, while useful, was notorious for repeatedly forgetting her password. Also, as Ikanreed says, nobody here is obliged to stay, or to explain why they don't want to be around anymore. I've seen sudden endings on Wikipedia too where very active users stop without explanation. Avida Dollarsher again 22:57, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, I was just curious.--Don Juan (talk) 23:00, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
What did she do? What was she useful for? I took a look at her edits but could not find anything amounting to "usefulness". Was she a tech? Nerd (talk) 00:25, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Mei being "useful" is most likely some sort of early meme among the Old Guard of RW, just look at the userbox "This user believes Mei is useful" as an example.--Don Juan (talk) 01:00, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
It was a bit of self-promotion that became a meme because we all liked her. Avida Dollarsher again 09:25, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Welp I saw the dumbest exchange on the internet. It won't get any dumber[edit]

Someone linking to our genetic fallacy page saying "but obviously you don't understand genetics well enough to get it" with pure sincerity. I think that's it. It won't get any dumber. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:52, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Ha ha ha! It's the Internet, where rational thinking comes to die. Anyway, we should spend more time reading good books. Just a thought. Nerd (talk) 00:23, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
There is a saying - It is impossible to make things fool proof, as fools are so ingenious. The same applies to the levels of stupidity (absolute, fractal, composite and all other kinds) to be found in certain quarters of the internet - which swills through 'the tubes' and is to be found occasionally in many more places (and occasionally results in 'dumbing up' on some particularly egregious site). Anna Livia (talk) 12:20, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Spud's first Spanish RW translation[edit]

After translating six of our articles into Esperanto, I have now translated one RationalWiki article into Spanish. (I've translated a lot of my own articles into Spanish for a Spanish-language Wikia wiki about literature, But you don't want to know about that.) Anyway, I'm happy to mark the start of December with my new article Papá Noel. Now I know that there are some other Spanish speakers here, possibly even some native speakers, I'm not sure. You are, of course, most welcome to correct my mistakes or do anything else you like to the article to improve it. Un abrazo. Spud (talk) 09:47, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Neat translation. I've fixed some mistakes. Panzerfaust (talk) 14:14, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
@Panzerfaust Thanks. Nice to see that those mistakes were mostly typos. Spud (talk) 15:57, 1 December 2018 (UTC)


should we make a comicsgate page — Unsigned, by: / talk

Sig please.--Don Juan (talk) 21:36, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Like many of the "-gate" controversies, this is likely to blow over without gaining any substance. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:39, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
I've never even heard of this, and am not sufficiently interested to get off my proverbial lazy ass and actually look it up.--Don Juan (talk) 21:43, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Comicsgate, for those who don't know, is basically GamerGate but for comics. More specifically, it attempts to characterize the rise of non-cis, male, straight, and white artists and characters, particularly in the Big 2 (DC and Marvel, though mostly Marvel) as the comics industry being hijacked by "SJWs." It usually results in Twitter harassment, though it did contribute to the firing of Chuck Wendig from Marvel. RoninMacbeth (talk) 21:52, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
The people I know of talking about this shit have been talking about it for months and months and months. And as Ronin has said, it's gamergate but comics. Right down the the "it's about ethics in comic books" thing. Which makes even less sense than the original gamergate version. Since Zoe Quinn is now a comic book writer/artist in addition to a video game developer, even she's back in the stupid fucking cross-hairs again. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 22:09, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
There's been whining for years about classic comic book heroes being reimagined as black or gay or women. Is that the same thing? --Annanoon (talk) 10:01, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Not entirely sure, but it would be logical to assume so.--Don Juan (talk) 13:36, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
I can't say I was 100% sure that turning Thor into a girl was done right. The comics deciding that anyone with Thor's hammer can be Thor, goes against the fact the movie Thor had his hammer broken while making it very clear that Thor's power is innate and nothing to do with his hammer. This massive character break is just lazy, the comic Thor and movie Thor are now completely different. It's not even like there is a shortage of times the comics break their own storyline, but still you expect basic things to match up. Basically it's not even to do with gender... It's that damn hammer. — Dysk (contribs) 15:41, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
It doesn't much matter what people say about this trend. The only question is, "can they sell it?" Probably most people look at comic characters like Sunday comic strips: they are always more or less the same. Who cares about the complaints? Not really a story. The story is: can the trend be sold? With billions from movie income, that may not matter, for a while.Ariel31459 (talk) 16:13, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Except, of course, Marvel comics is now just an engine to testbed stories and characters for the movies which make all the money. This has led to things like fan favorite x-men being sidelined because Disney doesn't get to make those movies. I'm sure at some level, Disney cares about the profitability of the various comics they're making, but trying to put sales in a neat box labeled "profit motive" is messy. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:22, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
@Ikanreed: Did you watch moviebob too? RoninMacbeth (talk) 02:14, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
no, sorry. If an internet personality has made that case, it's cause it's pretty intuitive. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 06:59, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Honestly Comicsgate is stupid. Unlike Gamergate where there was at least some valid complaints of unethical behavior in gaming journalism this is just not comparable. Look Comics sell if they're read. Don't give them attention and don't read them, they won't succeed. Honestly I don't read Marvel anymore, not because It's diverse or whatever other BS excuse MovieBob trots out to dismiss those right of center. But because they're not good. The preachy social justice is just cream on a garbage sundae. The behavior of the writers and editors on twitter isn't helping at all though. Which is why DC doesn't allow their editors to do that as much. DC comics are better now than Marvel comics. It's a shame that their movies mostly are subpar. Don't like COmics with "SJW" messages. Don't read it. TheDarkMaster2 (talk) 23:08, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

More Fundie fail for the lulz[edit]

So I picked -again, canned program- in one of those Fundagelical stations -another still more rich in Fundagelicanism has gone under for now. It seems its continuous ads asking for monies were not just lies for Jesus- an old man, who among other things consider the old Roman Janus as a "demon", has the same "Catholicism is just refurbished paganism" mantra, and has the classical Fundie fixation for Israel plus other standard Fundie BS, telling that "Quantum scientists" (sic) have discovered that the "heavy quark" (sic) opens portals to a dark Universe composed of dark matter and dark energy and that it proves God's existence. Cue to first mentioning the Jewish scientist Gerhard Schroeder, who relates it to the Talmud (you already know the Fundie obsession with Judaism) and who cites it as a proof of God's existence as the Universe was created from nothingness, and later on attempts to relate it to Genesis and how light appeared there before the Sun and other stuff mixing it with black holes, Einstein's relativity, the expansion of the Universe, etc.

All attempting to prove that the Bible is right, of course twisting the original Hebrew text attempting to unify the six days of Genesis with the estimated age of the Universe (Old Earth creationism in other words, or rather something on the line of "Earth inside a black hole"), and of course complaints of an "evolutionist view of the Universe that discards God". Not to mention the "Big Beng" was NOT an explosion, nor any serious scientist claims it was a miracle produced by an entity that later on became human, etc.

Being a former University teacher of philosophy does not transform someone into a scientist, as much wise as you may be (not that given the educational level of most of the people who hear said station many will care of or especially know how dense the BS of above is). And that man is the most redeemable of the bunch there. Panzerfaust (talk) 14:35, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

i've some friends at nasa who'd like to get ahold of this "heavy quark"... FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 08:45, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Panzerfaust, oh, and I suppose you have a rational explanation to refute all the above?
Remember, everything is tailored to a target audience, taking into account their relative level of intelligence, education, and analytical abilities. How do you think we ended up with such fucked up shit as Obamacare? nobs piss in my ear 03:48, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Folk memory[edit]

Reading the Talk.Origins flood myth FAQ, specifically the section on Indigenous Australian flood myths, written by my dear friend Mark Isaak, it hit me that at least some of these myths were describing the rise in sea levels following the end of the Last Ice Age, it seems that cultures round the world have similarly preserved folk memories of the end of the Ice Age, such as this one from Scandinavia:

"Oden, Vili, and Ve fought and slew the great ice giant Ymir, and icy water from his wounds drowned most of the Rime Giants. The giant Bergelmir escaped, with his wife and children, on a boat made from a hollowed tree trunk. From them rose the race of frost ogres. Ymir's body became the world we live on. His blood became the oceans."

Neat, huh?--Don Juan (talk) 09:26, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

There is reasonable evidence for an area of land off Cornwall that unfortunately disappeared due to rising sea levels, the kingdom it is supposed to have been is generally called Lyonesse and is somewhat legendary, but it is a geological fact that Mounts Bay used to be dry land, you can still sea the tree stumps on the seabed, so there is some truth to it. — Dysk (contribs) 14:14, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
I know, I was going to mention it but I forgot the name of what it was called, for some reason I kept conflating Doggerland with Lyonesse.--Don Juan (talk) 14:48, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
i thought doggerland was just a secluded car park late at night. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:33, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, it is pretty neat. Maybe an article about disparate flood myths would be appropriate? RoninMacbeth (talk) 19:04, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Flood myth? — Dysk (contribs) 19:38, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Ah. Well, there goes that idea. RoninMacbeth (talk) 19:46, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
I dunno, the existing article is all about analysis of the biblical flood myth, something else could be made. — Dysk (contribs) 19:52, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Clathrate Gun Hypothesis[edit]

Is the Clathrate Gun Hypothesis true? It scares me. Spacehillbilly (talk) 16:29, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

According to Clathrate gun hypothesisWikipedia, the validity of the hypothesis is not conclusively proven or disproven. — Dysk (contribs) 16:33, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
It should scare you. And it's not the only positive feedback loop in climate. Artic ice albedo, snowpack-driven CO2 absorption disappearing, wildfire CO2 release, water vapor greenhouse effect(though offset by cloud albedo, maybe), the world of things getting way worse for no reason is huge and terrifying. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:44, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

What are your thoughts on Post-Colonialism, anti-"Orientalism," and so on?[edit]

Interested in hearing everyone's opinions of this. Lord Aeonian (talk) 02:07, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

it was funny to hear majid nawaz use anti-orientalism to defend quilliam against a white critic recently. the postmodern neomarxists are such successful infiltrators that even their enemies use their terms... FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 08:43, 2 December 2018 (UTC)e an
It's a complicated problem but I think the answer is somewhat simple.
  • Many are unaware of the continual toxic effect colonialism has on many states which were once colonies, most especially those which achieved independence recently and those problems reverbrate in countless ways today with an incredible amount of suffering all around. The economic, political and cultural consequences are still strong today. It is also the case that our attitudes can still sometimes mirror the far more extreme ones that lead to colonialism. Post-whatever-ists have written works that illustrate the subtle ways how colonialism still linger on including "othering". However some post-stuf-ists take orientalism to such an absurd extreme that there is a backlash today including with humanists, moderate academics and most especially from the right and radical right. Sometimes that backlash is as extreme as is extreme-orientalism.
  • Most post-colonialists hold onto the idea that colonialism is responsible for each and every single problem that exists in developing countries to the point that nothing a tyrranical dictator can do, no anti-human rights culture can do which isn't the result of colonialism. Islamic extremism in Pakistan? Colonialism. Albino witch burning in Africa? Colonialism. Modern slavery in Saudi Arabia? Colonialism. Insane dictator in African country that was barely coloniserd? Colonialism. It is actually quite amazing how easy it is to blame everything on Colonialism to the point that countries no longer seem to have any agency nor even the slightest responsibility for contemporary problems. And for radical post-everything-ists , while colonialism explains just about every problem that exists in say, West Africa, we are still not to judge FGM, rampant sexism, homophobia, modern-day slavery etc because of cultural relativism and other arguments. Two ideas that confusingly conflict. It's another reason why extreme-orientalism has seen some anti-orientalism. ShabiDOO 07:00, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
At some point gotta move on it's not colonists that are blowing people up or committing female genitalia mutilation. TheDarkMaster2 (talk) 02:09, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Blowing people up? Well yes, of course. Some people would argue that we are, in fact, blowing people up. But they miss the point. For you see, my dear friend, our method of blowing people up is civilized, it makes people better for having done the deed.
Observing the trajectory of viscera from the cockpit of an AC-130 or the camera of a Reaper drone provides a more majestic, scenic view of the destruction. It allows for a person to gain a much-needed greater perspective on the termination of human life and the destruction of settlements. Contrast this to the barbaric, charmingly antiquated tactic of the Daesh or Boko Haram insurgent who sets an IED in a school. While both methods result in virtually the same effect, our method comes with the benefit of civilizing the one who bombs the wedding, or the hospital. Therefore, it truly pleases me to say that we, the United States, are spreading the majesty of civilization to the Saudis and Iraqis, who now may blow people up like civilized people. Like Americans.
<end sarcasm>In all seriousness, I concede the FGM point. Though isn't using "But FGM" as a response to "the legacy of imperialism comes in the form of massive political and economic instability in the regions Europeans colonized in the 18th and 19th centuries" is a bit of non sequitur? RoninMacbeth (talk) 05:53, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
I've always seen this "joke" as incredibly stupid. No one is saying that the style of Western war is inherently different from how the groups they fight against operate, and if they did they wouldn't say it matters. They say that the West is fighting these groups to eventually dismantle/disarm them and phase out all sources of violence, which wouldn't happen if the West just left them alone and things would get so out of hand the violence would spill out, destabilize neighboring areas, and end in attacks on the West. I have never heard even the most rabid pro-war person say that drone strikes are fundamentally "more civilized" then IEDs, or that killing itself is 'different' or 'ok' when one side does it but not the other, but I have seen many anti-war people claim this is what they they think. They justify their violence, yes, and it doesn't do you any favors to ignore critiquing their justifications in favor of asinine strawmen no one finds funny. Lord Aeonian (talk) 18:39, 4 December 2018 (UTC)


I think that a RW page on Dentistry could be interesting, because:

Let me know if it seems an interesting project. Thinker(unlicensed) 13:07, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Sure. Why not? Spud (talk) 13:28, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, absolutely create a page, no one will stop you, and if I can think of anything to contribute, I will. In my own opinion, basically any kind of quackery that exists and is sold to people is an automatic "yes that's a good article idea" on RW ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:27, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
This is a great idea. — Dysk (contribs) 15:46, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
I just saw that there's already a page on Dentistry quackery, so only the last two points of my list need to be covered. Thinker(unlicensed) 16:12, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Dentists are worse than Chiropractors. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:48, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

So get your teeth into it. Anna Livia (talk) 19:05, 4 December 2018 (UTC) ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────The dental woo article can stand to getting split, IMO, just as how water woo was split. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 19:37, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

We don't need a dentistry page because it already exists: Dental woo. This can be expanded or split as needed. Bongolian (talk) 23:31, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
There are RW-relevant dentistry topics that aren't woo. For instance the complex scientific debate into flossing (as I understand it, flossing is effective if done by a dentist but ineffective if done by anyone else); evidence-based dentistryWikipedia; tooth-whitening (which obviously works but may have serious side-effects); dental phobia; media presentation of dental science; maybe even the link between dental health and heart disease. I guess these could be created as individual articles, but it's sometimes easier to start as a subsection of a larger article. --Annanoon (talk) 10:10, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
@Annanoon Yes, that's the kind of topics I have in mind. I'd like to start writing about that, but many things are still not clear to me. For example, regarding common toothpaste, it seems to me that the only ingredient whose efficacy has been scientifically proved is fluorite. Thinker(unlicensed) 16:43, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

What support I did have for Trump is officially gone[edit]

I cannot take the push for the wall nor the newest set of childish behavior. I tried so fucking hard to give a benefit of a doubt, no more. Even my mom and oldest brother, by the way were Trump supporters, even had enough of the crap.

Welcome to America of 2018 folks! Oh The Humanity!!!! --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 03:44, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Looks like Trump supporters are starting to see the writing on the wall. - Mob boss (Butcher my flaming corpse) 6:04 AM, 11/28/18 EST
Ironically I kinda liked him before he ran for president, when he was just an American Lord Sugar. — Dysk (contribs) 12:04, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Same here, I supported Bernie before HRC won the nomination, I was actually undecided for most of it. Unsure of who to vote for. - Pinto bean eating motherfucker (Bury me alive in my own feces), 7:19 AM, 11/28/18 EST
I used to fucking hate the guy, nowadays I pretty much don't care about him but I still think he's a jackass. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 15:19, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
I couldn't have said it better myself. Amen.--Don Juan (talk) 15:22, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
If you read Bob Woodward's Fear, one takeaway point is that the good parts of Trump's agenda -- US out of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Korea; dumping free trade deals -- have been systematically undermined by the national-security machine and state capitalism. Trump has turned into an enabler of the worst elements of the Republican party. In 2016, I found Hillary Clinton at best mildly preferable over Trump. She would have been an entirely different kind of disaster, but Trump's failure to stick to his guns is disappointing. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 15:56, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
I seriously thought the childishness was what "you people" liked in the first place. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:59, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I agreed with some of the issues presented. I was not a cult fanatic like the far right. Either way, no more support for Trump. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 21:30, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I have a very very very antagonistic response to that statement, almost immediately, even though your statement is "no more of that" I still feel the need to say "what the fuck" to what you originally believed. Specifically, "agreed with [...] the issues". Pointing at a problem existing is not insightful. "Look, a trade deficit" is mindless. It's banal. Is that really what drew you in? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:59, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
I did not intended to be antagonistic, it was meant for emphasis. As for the issues, I admit I was a sucker- getting rid of NAFTA, better benefits for military and police veterans, using our own oil for gasoline production. Things like that. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:16, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
I too have lost respect for him. And before anyone says "Duh why you respect him at all mindless drone" Is because there was no way to know what would happen if he got elected. Like I knew for a fact the Hillary wasn't gonna do dick. And I wasn't not gonna vote for her cause she has no Y chromosome. But be honest how many of her supporters were open minded. Looking at you @ikanreed. But seriously Trump sucks. TheDarkMaster2 (talk) 00:15, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
@TheDarkMaster2 "And I wasn't gonna vote for her cause she has no Y chromosome." Why does that matter? (talk) 02:22, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
I was making a joke you fucking retard and a misspelling you dumb fuck white knight! I said Hey me not voting for her wasn't because she had an XX chromosome. And that the claim that many people didn't vote for her for that reason. which is garbage. Moron why don't you go back to tumblr. TheDarkMaster2 (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Zombie...why did you try so fucking hard to give Trump the benefit of the doubt? What quality about him (other than saying comical nasty shit about everyone) motivated you to forgive every douchey thing done and every terrible unqualified unhinged unprofessional unhuman thing about him? ShabiDOO 10:06, 6 December 2018 (UTC)