RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive327

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 28 October 2019. 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>, <295>, <296>, <297>, <298>, <299>, <300>, <301>, <302>, <303>, <304>, <305>, <306>, <307>, <308>, <309>, <310>, <311>, <312>, <313>, <314>, <315>, <316>, <317>, <318>, <319>, <320>, <321>, <322>, <323>, <324>, <325>, <326>, <328>, <329>, <330>, <331>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, <340>, <341>, <342>, <343>, <344>, <345>, <346>, <347>, <348>, <349>, <350>, <351>, <352>, <353>, <354>, <355>, <356>, <357>, <358>, <359>, <360>, <361>, <362>, <363>, <364>, <365>, <366>, <367>, <368>, <369>, <370>, <371>, <372>, <373>, <374>, <375>, <376>, <377>, <378>, <379>, <380>, <381>, <382>, <383>, <384>, <385>, <386>, <387>, <388>, <389>, <390>, <391>, <392>, <393>, <394>, <395>, <396>, <397>, <398>, <399>, <400>, <401>, <402>, <403>, <404>, <405>, <406>, <407>, <408>, <409>, <410>, <411>, <412>, <413>, <414>, <415>, <416>, <417>, <418>, <419>, <420>, <421>, <422>, <423>, <424>, <425>, <426>, <427>, <428>, <429>, <430>, <431>, <432>, <433>, <434>, <435>, <436>, <437>, <438>, <439>, <440>, <441>, <442>, <443>, <444>, <445>, <446>, <447>, <448>, <449>, <450>, <451>, <452>, <453>
, (new)(back)

Please review and/or edit my draft article on Meivazhi.[edit]

Hello. I hope you're having a nice day. I typed up and drafted an article on Meivazhi, but I didn't want to submit it without making sure it was Rational-Wiki ready so I'm enlisting your help. The link is here.

Concerns of note are: The 'Beliefs' section doesn't have too many references for the earlier section, but the reason is that its a small country cult three hours from the nearest city in India, but has influence in India and is even listed along with Sikhism (which we have an article on) on Wikipedia but the religious elders insist on not handing down their core beliefs, preferring to keep it secret, and their holy books are not published online. Additionally I think I might have gone overboard with the Snark. I re-wrote the text describing Meivazhi's beliefs on their wikipedia page by using my own words to summarize the main ideas while also poking fun at the absurdities. Its an entertaining read but, I took another look at the Sikhism page and if I'm using that as the example, I might have ripped too much into this.

All help is appreciated. Thanks! Cumulus Discuss 09:34, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Not sure that comparing a divine paradise to Discord or Twitter really carries; when I think of Discord I think of the world's worst Web interface, and Twitter is a cesspool I've so far avoided. Interesting belief system that does not look quite so bad on paper. A bit more detail on how it interacts with surrounding society might be helpful. Since this is the first time I ever heard of this religion I can't be much help. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 20:40, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm thinking about just straight up deleting that section since it can't be proved anyway besides, 'its on Wikipedia'. Do you think it would be RW-ready after that, or do more changes need to happen? Cumulus Discuss 01:44, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

MY EYES[edit]

https://youtu.be/h7vVkkru6OU this video instantly comes to my mind anytime I'm on one of those eye-gougingly "colorful" conspiracy websites on the webshite list. Aaronmichael5 19:16, October 5th 2019 (UTC

Liberty Prime[edit]

Oxyaena Harass 12:12, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Why I my talkpage locked?[edit]

Also upload the image for my userpage. Iacentem Omissio (talk) 12:57, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Ask @CogitoNotStirred. Image added. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:45, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie It had a good deal to do with their very first edit. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 14:51, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
@CogitoNotStirred After reviewing their edits I see what you mean. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:50, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

The world of 2019[edit]

In reading Trump's tweet where he openly calls for Schiff's and Pelosi's impeachment, as well as accuses both of them of treason, I genuinely feel like I'm starting to lose touch with reality. How in the world did we get to a point where arguably the most powerful man in the world, and one of the de facto arbiters of America's law and ideals, does not even understand the rules of the country he lives in and openly makes a mockery of them? Members of Congress cannot be impeached, and nothing Schiff or Pelosi has done is even remotely related to treasonous behavior. I don't even care about his base eating it up anymore - how in the world did we get to the point where this is okay and normal? How is what I described above not impeachable on its own, in a bubble? It's so blatant and I'm losing so much hope for the future with how far we've fallen.

I normally don't let the news (or things outside of my control in general) get to me mentally/emotionally, but I genuinely feel like I'm losing it these days. I'm in a major funk right now and this is part of it. And yet, my political detractors would just call me a triggered little snowflake.

I'm still of the general opinion that society moves in an upward direction in the long run even if there are major troughs along the way, and I still think that's all this is. But I'm starting to get to the point that I can't take it anymore. I don't know what to think and I'm losing my mind. TheUnderOver (talk) 13:35, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Trump will say the most irrational stupid shit imaginable if it serves his purpose. He will say anything, any lie, any manipulative bullshit, any malicious insult and any cruel phrase...if it serves him. And this can only get worse
We got to this point because people voted him in. They don't care at the moment that he is breaking all protocol, civility and even some laws. Their agenda is being fulfilled and they don't give a shot about the long te repercussions. They think it's helarious he's doing what it takes to get the job done. They'll only care about rules and laws once a democrat takes office. Question is: will it be possible to go back to protocol and proceedures after the republicans broke all the most important ones? Can US politics return to civility after Trump? Will future president all get some leeway in breaking the law?
There is virtually no difference with Boris and the conservatives. Just slightly down a notch and fewer personal insults and the level of education. Totally the same rulebook though and disregard for tradition, civility and proceedures and even the law. ShabiDOO 13:51, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately the bigoted, chest-pumping strongman who "follows his own laws", and the idiots who enjoy this style of leadership, is nothing terribly new, and seems to be a default in countries without strong institutions, or countries experiencing instability of some sort. The good news is that Western democracies are overall faring a lot better than, say, (Godwin alert!) Hitler and Mussolini in the 1930s. Today's strongmen wannabes in any European country that is not ex-communist, or the United States, are not terribly popular and highly mocked. The bad news is you have examples like Turkey, Russia and the Philippines where strongmen idiots do enjoy popularity (although the grip is slipping in the later two). Personally, in the US, if I were on the conservative side of things, I would look at Donald Trump's behavior, the demographics, and the current political affiliation of "Millenials" / "Generation Z" / whatever (generally they approve of Trump by about 10-15 percentage points lower of Trump's already low approval rating), and honestly be concerned about what the GOP doubling down on the Trump style behavior means for the GOP future. (Britain, on the other hand, you have a situation where no one likes anyone...) Soundwave106 (talk) 15:17, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Fuck civility, the people want change. Trump got into power because he cashed in on the crisis that is income inequality, you want to get rid of future potential Trumps? Get rid of capitalism. Oxyaena Harass 18:08, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
You're just watching the natural decay of human systems. I have my own thoughts on what would fix it. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:57, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
One word: capitalism. Oxyaena Harass 18:06, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Inadequate. You may be a socialist, but you should also be a skeptic and avoid reductionist answers. Especially since their question had little to do with the fundamental ordering of society, and a lot with how stupid electoral politics in the US has become. Capitalist atomization could be a valid lens to understand how people have become alienated enough to not push for the resolution of these problems, but criminals calling lazy centrists "traitors" when they finally deign to show the slightest bit of defiance isn't innate to capitalism. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:15, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Trump talked about the system being rigged, similar to the say Bernie did. But economic factors weren't the main reason why people supported Trump, that was racism/sexism/xenophobia.[1][2][3]-RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:42, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Trump talked about the "system" (i.e. CNN) being "rigged"(i.e. reporting what he said) against him. I don't think he's ever even lightly implied the system is rigged against regular people. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
If racism is a "high crime', why don't you impeach him for it? And if you don't, I guess its not. nobsI'm dumbstrzok! 06:35, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

here in the uk, ive given up keeping up with whatever nonsense trumps tweeted now, or the latest he said/she said analysis of the impeachment process. I can do this because im not American. its too bewildering. I wish I could do the same with things here in the uk. its just as bewildering. its cliché but apt to describe brexit as a car crash in slow motion. Ive tried to keep up with all the developments, try to ignore the chaff. but its all chaff and we barrel over a cliff. I don't see a possible solution to the situation we are in. I feel like I have a handle on things, of what is lie, what is fantasy, what is possible. but it doesn't seem enough. I can call out every lie, I can try to disperse every fantasy. everyone sees the lies of boris and co, their appalling behaviour. but there is no opposition. not an effective one. after 3 years of complete farce, polling suggests the tories are 15% ahead. ahead. how is that even possible? there is no viable alternative, no viable plan on how to get there. there is no evidence any lessons have been learned. Americans take heart. a change at the top might be all that is required to start to halt the most egregious of your problems and move in a better direction. In the uk, we cant undo what looks inevitable at this point. we might have less than a month, maybe even a week, for some change to present itself to prevent a hard Brexit. after that everything gets a whole lot worse. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:26, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Then you missed the tweet about "I, in my great and unmatched wisdom, " that is 100% real and not fake. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:28, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
sadly, I didn't. I given up trying to follow it, but my flatmate insists on updating me with every little thing. he wont stop. I might need a restraining order AMassiveGay (talk) 20:36, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
The dude is so fucking dense it's pathetic. Oxyaena Harass 05:13, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
I see the possible solution; president's with an opposing House will routinely get impeached just to put an asterisk behind their name. It's the solution to gridlock. It doesn't matter if they get convicted. it's making a statement, and "standing up for principles." My only regret is that we didn't impeach that foreign born piece of shit Obama earlier. nobsI'm dumbstrzok! 06:35, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
How about he just complies with the investigations and keeps on with the job of president, like Clinton did. But no he can't do that because he governs by grievances and he can't get out of his own way throwing out wild conspiracy theories and admitting that yes he did the crimes and also that is the right thing to do. That's not even getting at his syphilitic brain melting into mush.RipCityLiberal (talk) 15:47, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────An interesting — but perhaps predictable — footnote here: Nobs has returned full bore to birtherism ("My only regret is that we didn't impeach that foreign born piece of shit Obama earlier.") — despite having previously claimed credit for removing birtherism from Conservapedia (Conservapedia:RobSmith#Birtherism). Is it a sign of mental decay, or that he subconsciously realizes that the end is nigh for Trumpercorruptionism and — like Trump — is lashing out at the old bugaboos rather than dealing with the problems at hand? Bongolian (talk) 18:12, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Hot take: Trumpism isn't a thing. Trump is merely a side effect of people like nobs(in that they do not care a goddamn bit about whether what they say is true) forming the core voting bloc of the republican party. There's no consistent ideals underneath his twisting sidewinding self contradicting defenses of the scandals of the day. Owning the libs is the one and only priority in deciding what is true today. What was true yesterday matters nil. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:53, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Hard disagree. Trumpism is most certainly a thing. It is an amalgamation of conservative thought at it's most base, focusing on grievance and shamelessness. It is the natural product of increasingly radical conservatism, where the only requirement is unquestioning loyalty. Throughout the Obama administration(but really since Goldwater), conservative politics has been a no holds bar, take no prisoners, pursuit of pure conservative ideals above functioning government, political processes or common decency. For six years, they asked constantly who would ultimately lead them to this salvation, enter Trump, a vessel empty of personal convictions, easily malleable, who only requests complete and total subservience. You could call it authoritarian conservatism, but Trumpism is just fine.RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:17, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
@Bongolian Bzzzzt. Wrong. I thew out a partisan bullshit charge the same way Democrats have done, and are doing. nobsI'm dumbstrzok! 01:30, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Here's a thought to keep you up at night. There's a small army of cranks, charlatans and grifters devoted to monetising right wing rage and paranoia. You've been spewing equally weapons-grade bullshit on the internet for, what, twelve years now, and haven't made a fucking penny from it. You could've been rich by now.
Instead, you were dumb enough to plant your flag with Andy, and devote *checks notes* a terrifying amount of your free time to an "encyclopedia" project so toxic that fellow conservative crazies refuse to acknowledge its existence.
Great job, Rob. Great job. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 03:06, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
"Bitherism is 'a partisan bullshit charge' and not xenophobic racism" is a galaxy brain take there rob.RipCityLiberal (talk) 15:16, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Gotta love it, huh? Trump said, "Take your impeachment inquiry and stick it up your ass." Latest word is, Mueller and Rosenstein both got their nuts in a vice for being coup participants. nobsI'm dumbstrzok! 15:29, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Well good to know your embracing that your a racist piece of shit, that doesn't understand basic English like what "coup" means.RipCityLiberal (talk) 18:28, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
When the WH Counsel is signing off on letters that read like a particularly spittle-flecked Hannity monologue, it's hard to conclude that Trump is anything other than utterly fucked. Face it: the adults in the room have given up on trying to save his ass. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 18:44, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
It's just more Democrat bullshit. America sees it as such. nobsI'm dumbstrzok! 18:51, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Rob, you do realise there is a rest of the world, and that they are not looking favourably at the whole US as a result of Trump's BS, right? I mean, self-deluded conspiratorial partisan thinking in the USA is sabotaging the whole country on the world stage, just as Putin wanted. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 18:57, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Rob would happily take Putin as president over any of the Dem. candidates. The lunatic right-wing fringe rehabilitated Vlad as a bona fide conservative several years ago. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 19:05, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
White-Evangelicals in the US have more in common with Russians than Americans. They should move there.RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:36, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
In Nobs' heart-of-hearts, he is an equivocating, ratfucking racist. He's also a closet masochist since he keeps coming back to RW for more abuse. Bongolian (talk) 04:10, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
C'mon now. Don't you think the subject of impeachment requires bi-partisan dialogue and consensus? Or do you choose to add fuel to the fire that extreme leftists driving this monologue thus far are anti-constitutional totalitarian fascists who would take everybody's rights away? Go ahead, revert me, scroll me. Prove me right. nobsI'm dumbstrzok! 12:58, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Nobs is a traitor to the United States and does not care that he hates his country. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 13:10, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Yah, right. nobsNo border! No Wall! No USA at All! 13:19, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
The argumentum ad poesiam. "I can make up stupid chants / Just as senseless as Rob's rants! Things are true if they have rhymes / That you repeat a thousand times." CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 14:56, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
"Bi-partisan consensus" Kind of hard to be bi-partisan when the GOP goes full "We've always been at war with EastAsia" and cannot understand the evidence of a crime that is staring them right in their stupid faces.RipCityLiberal (talk) 15:33, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Crime? [can't wait for this] Ok, tell me how asking to do a favor about CrowdStrike, through contorted logic and reasoning translates into asking the President of Ukraine to open an investigation on the Biden's that had already been opened before the President of Ukraine was elected? Hmmmm? Now please, don't come back with Schiff/Pelosi/WaPo/MSNBC/CNN bullshit. Just explain, please, in your own words, using your own mind, reasoning, and thought processes. nobsNo border! No Wall! No USA at All! 19:51, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
These are the President's words dumbshit:

I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike... I guesse you have one of your wealthy people... The server, they say Ukraine has it There - are a lot. of things that went on, the whole situation ..I think you're surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance -, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it's very important that you do it if that's possible.

The nonsense behind Crowstrike is the fever dream of literally the dumbest people on the planet, and all comes down to trying discredit the idea that Russia interfered in the 2016 election, even though that assessment comes from all US intelligence agencies and the Senate Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Here is the crime:

...The other thing, There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it... It sounds horrible to me.

Nothing Trump says here is true, and Trump is asking for material assistance to be used against his opponent. That is a crime. And both of these requests are so unseemly, they are most certainly "high crimes and misdemeanors", an intentionally vague description to remove a President if something they do may not be illegal, but materially benefits the President, unfairly punishes an enemy of the President, or threatens the National Security of the US. RipCityLiberal (talk) 21:10, 10 October 2019 (UTC)


  • that assessment comes from all US intelligence agencies - false statement. [4]
  • There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, - see WaPo, July 22, 2019, 3 days before the Trump-Zelensky phone call: "As vice president, Biden said Ukraine should increase gas production. Then his son got a job with a Ukrainian gas company." [5]
  • Trump is asking for material assistance to be used against his opponent - false statement; Biden is not the Democratic nominee.
  • That is a crime. see Ukraine Treaty on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters. state.gov [6]
Grade: Fail. Try again. nobsNo border! No Wall! No USA at All! 05:30, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Eat Shit - [7] [8]
  • If you bothered to read the fucking article you would find THERE IS NO FUCKING EVIDENCE Joe Biden's actions influence Burisma, and considering the charge is that he pressured the Shokin be sacked for personal interest, and Shokin wasn't investigating Burisma at that time or Hunter Biden ever, again eat shit.
  • Ellen L. Weintraub also wants to tell you to eat shit [9][10]
  • Seeing as how that specific corruption body was being attacked by Shokin and Lustenko as being corrupt while spreading this bullshit, I'd say maybe your understanding of this situation is limited only to Hannity talking points.
Stay in your lane asshole. There is no fucking way to spin this.RipCityLiberal (talk) 16:43, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • No US intelligence or law enforcement agency ever examined the servers: the ICA was written by Brennan and Strzok.
  • WaPo was talking about Biden's son. YOU said "Nothing Trump says here is true.
  • Ellen Weintraub is a commie whore.
  • I write Hannity talking points. nobsNo border! No Wall! No USA at All! 17:02, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Oh my god you are so fucking stupid. THE SERVER DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER. It isn't needed to identify, that the Russians hacked information, released it strategically, and had a clear preference for Trump over Clinton. The "talk about Bidens son" is that the VP pressured Ukraine to fire a prosecutor investigating Hunter Biden, which is a lie. Great ad hominen attack on a civil servant dipshit, maybe if you could Hannity's dick out of your mouth long enough you could understand that the facts, are crystal clear.
Are you saying WaPo lied? nobsNo border! No Wall! No USA at All! 05:22, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
(EC) You're the poster child for the Dunning-Kruger effect. Both the FBI and CIA have examined the servers. They received and analysed a complete data profile of every last scrap of information that was on them, right down to the most obscure process logs. The intrusions they found correlated with intelligence intercepts from Russian agencies. Case closed unless you're a complete fucking moron, or wilfully lying for Trump and Republican Jesus. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 18:30, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
I gitit. No evidence is needed to accuse Russia, and no evidence is needed to accuse Trump. And Helen, gimme a site before you embarrass yourself. Neither the CIA, FBI, Homeland Security, nor ANY US law enforcement or intelligence agency EVER examined DNC servers. Neither DNC or CrowdSource would allow it. And if what you think is true, James Comey (again) perjured himself to Congress, March 20, 2017. nobsNo border! No Wall! No USA at All! 05:03, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm telling you if you bothered to read that article it would tell you that it hasn't got a fucking thing to do with this. Neither does this server bullshit, because it's all a wild conspiracy theory with no basis in fact. What makes more sense; The Russian government, stole emails from the DNC and released them via Wikileaks? Or that the DNC, wanted to frame Russia for stealing emails, released the emails themselves, changing the story from "grab em by the pussy" and intentionally angering Sanders supporters by showing DNC staffers preferred Clinton to him, creating tension at the convention, then to not allow the FBI to prove their lies, whisked the server to Ukraine, and stored by some rich person (?). Cause only one of those has the support of EIGHT US Intelligence agencies, and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (CHAIRED BY A REPUBLICAN). Not to mention multiple efforts, by the Russian government to CONTACT MEMBERS OF THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN. Every excuse you come up with is dumber and dumber, and it will be comical when in a couple years you try spinning that you never supported Trump and his immoral administration (if you can live long enough without your brain exploding from galaxy brain takes).RipCityLiberal (talk) 15:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
The DNC colluded with the government of Ukraine to dig up dirt on Trump. [11] nobsNo border! No Wall! No USA at All! 20:23, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Wikileaks is not a credible source considering it amplified the work of Russian hackers and very specifically sought to harm Clinton in the primary and the general election. Also there is no evidence that any party interfered in the 2016 election, except Russia.RipCityLiberal (talk) 21:10, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Rob you have it all wrong. It was actually North Korea who is behind all of this collusion. They worked together with Julian Assange and Rush Limbaugh to make it SEEM (only to people intelligent like you who can read between the lines) as though the democrats colluded with the government of Ukraine to dig up dirt on Trump. But in reality Kim Young Il paid the Illuminati to give the Republicans the Holy Grail, hidden in Kurdish Syria, which would force Trump to pay Turkey to invade that land so he could steal it for himself. All of this is timed so that when the 2020 election happens the only candidate who could get elected would be an independent candidate: Kim Yong Un's pet cat, who under the control of the great leader could steer America back to morality, stability and prosperity. You've clearly been fooled by them. It seems we all have my dear RobSmith. ShabiDOO 21:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Rip, your assessment somewhat conflicts with what Politico reported:

A Ukrainian-American operative who was consulting for the Democratic National Committee met with top officials in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington in an effort to expose ties between Trump, top campaign aide Paul Manafort and Russia...Chalupa told Politico she had developed a network of sources in Kiev and Washington, including investigative journalists, government officials and private intelligence operatives... four days after Chalupa’s meeting at the embassy, when it was reported that Trump had in fact hired Manafort, suggesting that Chalupa may have been on to something. She quickly found herself in high demand. The day after Manafort’s hiring was revealed, she briefed the DNC’s communications staff on Manafort, Trump and their ties to Russia [12]

nobsNo border! No Wall! No USA at All! 22:52, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

These two paragraphs you fucking idiot:

Russia’s effort was personally directed by Russian President Vladimir Putin, involved the country’s military and foreign intelligence services, according to U.S. intelligence officials. They reportedly briefed Trump last week on the possibility that Russian operatives might have compromising information on the president-elect. And at a Senate hearing last week on the hacking, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said “I don't think we've ever encountered a more aggressive or direct campaign to interfere in our election process than we've seen in this case.”

There’s little evidence of such a top-down effort by Ukraine. Longtime observers suggest that the rampant corruption, factionalism and economic struggles plaguing the country — not to mention its ongoing strife with Russia — would render it unable to pull off an ambitious covert interference campaign in another country’s election. And President Petro Poroshenko’s administration, along with the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington, insists that Ukraine stayed neutral in the race.

It is astonishing how bad you are at this.RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:24, 14 October 2019 (UTC)


  • Russia’s effort was personally directed by Russian President Vladimir Putin, involved the country’s military and foreign intelligence services, according to U.S. intelligence officials. - I guess you're right. We'll have to wait and see if Brennan and Clapper are indicted.
  • They reportedly briefed Trump last week on the possibility that Russian operatives might have compromising information on the president-elect. - Actually they didn't. Comey asked for a one-on-one after everybody else left, and made notes in Comey memo #1.
  • There’s little evidence of such a top-down effort by Ukraine. - Says who? Crowdstrike?

It doesn't have to be from the "top-down"; we know who Fancy Bear is. [13] DNC colluded with Fancy Bear, the alleged hackers. Oh, and (hehehe):

  • President Petro Poroshenko’s administration, along with the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington, insists that Ukraine stayed neutral in the race. - Yah, the same guy who colluded with Biden to fire the prosecutor. A real credible witness there. Oh, but he's the President of the Ukraine. Yah, just like Zelensky saying he "was not pressured." Revisiting the top point again:
  • Russia’s effort was personally directed by Russian President Vladimir Putin - Who made this claim? The mid-level Russian bureaucrat who had no direct access to Putin extracted from Montenegro, now living in a $1 million home outside Washington under his real name (after the Sergei Skripal assassination attempt) with his wife and children, whose reports were sent directly to Brennan. nobsNo border! No Wall! No USA at All! 00:11, 15 October 2019 (UTC),
Because you are hopefully retarded, I'm not directing this to you but to any idiot possibly reading this thinking you are making real points:
  1. Eight intelligence agencies and a Senate investigation led by a GOP chairman have concluded Russia intervened in the election, to the benefit of Trump.
  2. Biden told Porshenko to sack Shokin,a Ukrainian prosecutor who wasn't prosecuting anyone, holding up military funding on the behalf of the United States, the European Union, and the International Monetary Fund.
  3. There isn't any evidence the DNC intended to interfere in the election BY GIVING THEIR OWN EMAILS TO WIKILEAKS TO WEAKEN THEIR OWN CAMPAIGN
Hanlon's Razor is calling. RipCityLiberal (talk) 04:54, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Why do you guys bother replying to this guy? Just ignore him or ban him.Machina (talk) 21:40, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I do it primarily because someone could actually take his incoherent ramblings and think he is a credible resource, which he isn't. As for why he isn't banned, it's because he hasn't actively violated any rules, he's just annoying. And that's the price of using an open platform.RipCityLiberal (talk) 22:15, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Is Buddhism a Science?[edit]

I've heard it said a lot that Buddhism is a science and that you can test it for yourself to see if it works or not. But I don't see much mentions of all the people it failed to help, and they do exist (or those who are worse off for it). Also it seems like it jumps to too many conclusions or plays off a "God of the gaps" some times. Other times it just feels like they are leading me to a conclusion, which doesn't sound very scientific. If it is based on personal experience that is even more so to doubt it's insights since we know how flawed anecdotes are.Machina (talk) 05:45, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

"Chemistry" and "physics" are sciences. They make falsifiable predictions and then change if they are, in fact, shown to be false. Does Buddhism do this? What double blind were carried out? When was the last time it changed as a result of such scientific testing? What scientific journal were the results published in?Hubert (talk) 12:51, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
The answer to the question is no. If you're looking for answers in religion, any religion, you're looking in the wrong place. And please don't post a chuffing huge (and completely and utterly pointless} quote like that again. Spud (talk) 13:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Per hubert. NO. In no way shape or form is Buddhism based on formulating testable hypotheses and rejecting ones that fail controlled experiments. NO. — Unsigned, by: Ikanreed / talk / contribs

I figured as much I did a read a few posts of Quora saying that quantum physics supports Buddhism but I'm not sure how true those are. Like this one: https://www.quora.com/Can-Buddhism-cure-lonelinessMachina (talk) 19:13, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Entirely untrue. Here's a life rule that will never turn you wrong, if someone says "quantum physics" and goes on to talk about literally anything bigger than a molecule, that person is lying to you. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:16, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
BUt they referenced how quantum physics says that there are no discrete molecules or particles and that it proves Buddhism syaing it has no essence.Machina (talk) 19:23, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Definetly deep into not even wrong territory, I'm afraid. Discrete particles and energy levels are a core part of quantum physics. A closed box with 10 protons and 12 electrons will have the exact same -3x10-19 charge forever, they aren't abstracted to not having essence. They have numerous immutable properties that no amount of superpostions, spooky actions at a distance, diffraction, uncertainty, or other quantum strangeness that's going to change the total mass, energy, momentum, angular momentum, or charge of that box. Immutable, essential properties that quantum physics respects just fine.
That person was lying to you. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:37, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Indeed we are dealing with two very very different kinds of knowledge. One is a basic understanding of a strange world of which of which we only have the most basic understanding of and need to study further. The other is terrible folk-psychology that tries to justify fatalism and apathy through vague sayings that slightly touch on the spiritual to give it some credence, per the near total lack of evidence behind it's claims. Guess which one is which. ShabiDOO 19:43, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

But didn't they do brainscans on the monks who have meditated for a while?Machina (talk) 19:08, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Acutally I found the quote here among others:

Machina (talk) 19:12, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Kind of a brief reply, but I dismiss dualism outright. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 02:18, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
@Machina I asked you not to post any more chuffing huge quotes and then you go and post two of the fuckers. Cut it out! Spud (talk) 05:17, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes they did brain scans on monks and found that when they were meditating two different parts of the brain are active at the same time. To then conclude therefore that Bhuddists attain oneness with the universe is not science. They may believe they have achieved oneness but there is no evidence that they had. If you achieve oneness with the universe then you should be able to tell us all about the universe but I'm yet to meet anyone who can. Likely they have condition their minds to arrive in a pleasant calm state and then associate it with "oneness" when it is probably nothing more than being highly relaxed with few distracting thoughts that comes with a warm glowing sensation (you know, similar to that feeling slipping into a hot bath after a weekend in the mountains). I've experienced something approaching it and indeed it's very pleasant (and a little scary) but you can just as easily claim it is whatever you want. Perhaps I was "touching God" or I was "entering the ghostly world" or I "resonated with the harmonies of the universe". A form of self hypnosis, something that involves the mind being highly creative and inventive. And even if that were the case, I don't see how we can suddenly jam the quantum world into this. Under what mechanism does quantum activity facilitate oneness with the universe in the brain? ShabiDOO 12:18, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I wanted to post those quotes to show what they were saying about it. As to the other matter there is truth to what you say. I think it's more like a feeling of oneness or rather they lead you to the conclusions they drew from their actions, which may or may not be what is actually happening. Scientifically all I can say is that the practice leads to certain states and that's it.Machina (talk) 04:54, 11 October 2019 (UTC) ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── More of the usual from Machina? Oxyaena Harass 07:45, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

It's a little disheartening to see an apparently earnest and sincere user of a site devoted to critical thinking and rational skepticism just consistently post things completely at odds with that and none of the advice people give here about how to apply those skills ever "takes". It's not really frustrating per se, because Machina seems to always be posting in good faith, but it makes my heart drop a little to think "Oh, we're never going to get through to some people about how pseudoscience poses as science". ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:27, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

It's mostly how Buddhism often talks about you having to experience it yourself and that logic won't take you there. Like with this: https://www.lionsroar.com/why-buddhism-is-true/Machina (talk) 18:39, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

You don't feel like that's a way of dodging legitimate questions about it? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:51, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Apologetics. The art of avoiding a straight answer and coming up with excuses that justify a claim that could not be justified otherwise. This reminds me very much of a typical Christian who insists that the bible is the true word of God and the lengths they will go to to explain why the dinosaurs aren't mentioned, how there could be 4 corners of the Earth, the totally conflicting bits, the scientifically incorrect parts, the cruel viscous God who is forgivng? stuff. They often pull excuses out of their asses, improvised in the moment to explain why something absurd actually makes sense if you just look at it from four different angles while standing upside down. So far in our conversations here you've avoided giving straight answers to most of our questions and haven't conceeded a single point (i.e. Bhuddism is NOT science) and just now you have quoted one of the biggest cop-outs: "It cannot be explained you just have to try it". All religions say that kind of bullshit. "You cannot understand the wisdom of the Lord until you feel the love of Jesus in your heart". "You cannot understand what Islam is until you fully submit to Allah". Etc. These mental gymnastics are usually tolerated more when it comes from people making religious claims because they often get a "I don't need to use reason or evidence" pass by many people. Because I cannot think of any other life endeavor where you would take these kind of question avoiding, dubious explanations and cop-outs seriously. ShabiDOO 21:18, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Greta Thunberg[edit]

After seeing news today of a threatening effigy of Great Thunberg being hung from a bridge in Rome and a pretty helarious video about irrational anger towards her, I thought we really ought to have a page on her. I've put it on my userspace if anyone wants to help. ShabiDOO 10:42, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I've expanded it very slighly and at some point in the future can look at Swedish media if useful. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 12:51, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
I added a few things as well. Soundwave106 (talk) 16:08, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
I added a couple of specific jackass responses to her from Sargon, Ingram, and some pastor.--NavigatorBR(Talk) - 04:03, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
It's so weird that throughout the entire timeline of people arguing that climate change is real and a pressing issue, climate change denial, while usually just throwing out "this is nonsense don't believe" arguments is finally pretty comfortable mainstreaming and maintaining a rolling attack on a 16 year old girl. The denialists didn't do a good job arguing with people like Bill McKibben or Naomi Klein, but certainly if Greta Thunberg isn't up for a shouting match, the whole thing is a leftist psyop? I mean, pick your battles, sure, but if your stance is intellectual integrity, pick your battles in a way that promotes that. While I'm not for using minors as mascots, I'm also not for using minors as punching bags. How low and intellectually bankrupt do you have to be to see a girl with a message and say "there's a girl and an argument... What will resonate? Let's attack the girl for being a stupid dumbass kid first." Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:26, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
It's climate denial. It's an inherently horrible opinion though maybe it previously didn't have the reputation for being this blatantly abominable (despite documented abuse of FOIA requests on researchers as in climategate, despite smearing credentials on researchers similar to anti-vaxxers doing so to doctors). I probably would've been surprised the deniers would be this vile for making effigies of teenagers that are sick of denialism and compromise for deniers, but prior, I learned more and more that the field has way more vicious cranks than you think. Climate change denial runs very much in tandem with fringe beliefs (and climate change denial is a fringe belief). Whenever it's just that saner people are moving away from denial after seeing the writing seared in the wall or deniers just digging in their heels and becoming more horrible, or a combination, not sure. But I hope more people realize now that climate change denialism is absolutely disgusting, not just from the negative consequences they sowed on society but the shockingly aggressive behavior they exhibit. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 06:19, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
A young person quoting the science is, in all likelihood, not going to be taken seriously, but should not expect to be viciously attacked. Anyone, especially a teenager, berating the leadership of basically everyone not paying attention or just not responding to warnings of climate scientists is unlikely to escape contumely. People don't respond well to harsh reproval, as a rule, no matter how worthy they are of receiving it. This actually surprises you? Ariel31459 (talk) 20:31, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Most of the ad hominem attacks on Greta Thunberg listed are from horrible people who have made a career on yelling ad hominem attacks at whatever triggers wingnuts these days. No surprise, of course. Two of the pundits listed (Dinesh D'Souza and Laura Ingraham) for instance also mocked Parkland students for being (justifiably so, as any reasonable person would deduce) pissed off about lax American gun culture. Why would their lack of decency extend to Ms. Thunberg? The only sad thing about this is that these types actually are able to have a career doing this. Soundwave106 (talk) 21:38, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Apparently chemstrail crackpots are not coming after Thunberg.[14] Bongolian (talk) 20:05, 10 October 2019 (UTC)


I`m gonna take a break from RW for a while, I have some personal woes that need sorting out. Sayonara for now. Oxyaena Harass 16:42, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Good luck with whatever's going on, and I wish you the best! Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 17:54, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Best wishes to you, Oxyaena! I appreciate your participation here. Bongolian (talk) 18:38, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Sorry to hear that, Oxyaena, and hope you're able to sort those issues out smoothly. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 18:58, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Hey guys, if trolls leave behind comments, please remove them. I had to remove two comments in this thread that had unnecessary responses to them. Do not feed the trolls. Thank you. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 01:05, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Oxy, you know I'll always miss ya when you're not here. Take care of yourself, write back soon. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:09, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Deep Adaptation[edit]

It's a notoriously bleak climate catastrophe paper that's been getting a lot of attention recently. I think it would be on mission to discuss the paper (I've started a draft on my userspace), since it has received a lot of accusations of pseudoscience. Its author, Jem Bendell, pulls a "This is the paper the peer reviewers tried to cover up," and Michael Mann has simply dismissed it as "crap" and said "uncontrollable levels of climate change" is unscientific and nonsensical. Apparently, his reference for saying the existing CO2 concentration has already locked in 5 C is also highly suspect.

Still, there's also the philosophical argument, which a lot of people seem to interpret as giving up or support for ecofascism, even though from what else I've read of Bendell, he firmly identifies capitalism as the problem, advises Jeremy Corbyn, and speaks for Extinction Rebellion. That's another area where a RationalWiki article would be useful: whatever one thinks of his philosophy, it would be useful to clarify what his argument actually is. Colossal Squid (talk) 05:54, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

More calls for ecofacism? ShabiDOO 14:32, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Bendell's pretty socialist-leaning, actually, and essentially calls to end capitalism in his other writings. The way I interpret it, it's that regardless of the outcome, capitalism will always be the bottleneck making things worse, so it's the key thing we need to relinquish. But I guess that's the trouble with the paper; it's so vague that everyone comes out of it with their own conclusion. I also have reservations about this coming off as white people acting like they've discovered something revolutionary with the notion of resilience in the face of future societal collapse, even though places like Haiti as well as indigenous groups all over the world deal with that right now. I mean, guy runs retreats like some sort of yogi wannabe. Colossal Squid (talk) 15:07, 9 October 2019 (UTC)


CPS lied to my sister and brother in law, saying they could get their kids back, turns out they have to sign the rights over to my brother in law's mother. CPS is full of fucking bastards I swear. Oxyaena Harass 13:56, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

You don't "have" to sign anything. Ever. There's not a single legal document that must be signed. I suspect your sister might be inflating what is a legitimately unfair situation to you a little. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:10, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Maybe, I know it is legitimately unfair, they took her fourth child from her as soon as he was born. Oxyaena Harass 14:55, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Surely they'd have to present a legal basis for that? CPS laws vary by state, but taking children usually requires a preponderance of evidence of imminent threat to health and safety. God, I don't want to take sides in a situation I don't understand, but I feel like I've got half of a story. I don't want to rule out cops being bastards, but even that would have a story to it. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:33, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
The "refused to sign" clause of any legal document is as harsh as "admitted to everything." Read your legal documents, yes, but refusing to sign is bad. Demand legal representation before you sign. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:02, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Upon another reading, maybe this is an off-color sovereign-citizen joke. If that's the case, what a relief. If it's not the case, I hope you've lawyered well.Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:48, 22 October 2019 (UTC)


I can be at times abrasive. at times I feel that's justified, at other times maybe less so. but in general I try to be civil. ask a fair question, i'll try to give a full and fair response. it might be a tad incoherent, but as full and fair as I am capable of. I try not to jump to conclusions. I assume good faith.

Assume good faith.

that there seems to be a chink in the armour and I without fail, get suckered in.

Sealions can fucking do one. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:13, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Good faith is the rarest and most valuable commodity of our age. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:07, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Remember when the internet first started up and it was really fun and it was almost entirely pleasant people online chatting and sharing ideas and information? And then remember before social media started the internet was still a forum of mostly good faith? ShabiDOO 18:14, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
honestly? no. it was already cesspool by the time I discovered the internet offered more than free porn that took hours to download 5 minutes worth. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:23, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, the forums and communities I've been to in the early 2000's were full of petty drama and sniping, and only look better in hindsight because they were user-run rather than corporate-run and thus had meaningful moderation to weed out the worst of the community. Meanwhile, I can still find a bunch of nice communities about specific topics even today. For gamer communities specifically, games that have a primarily female playerbase (e.g. Harvest Moon, Neopets) tend to be far less assholish than male-dominated communities (e.g. most competitive gaming), with unisex communities (e.g. Pokemon, Final Fantasy) being somewhere in the middle, so I think it's less about time period and more about the social dynamics we import from the real world. Of course, female-dominated fandom isn't completely drama-free, as anyone involved in fanfiction or fanart can attest, but my worst experiences tend to come from male-dominated spaces. Colossal Squid (talk) 18:27, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure about your video-game based community analysis. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:00, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
I remember that in the 90s the chat groups in AOL were almost entirely amicable and fun. And news groups (throughout the web) were pretty much the same. The "ring" organizations that coalated similar websites into one cycle of pages to visit were also very helpful and friendly. I honestly very very very rarely encountered stupid people online before the 2000s and even then relatively few before social media. Funny how very different one's experiences can be. ShabiDOO 19:05, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
I didn't get online till 2001ish. and that required a concerted effort with a specific motivation, else not even then. it was still dial up and not yet ubiquitous but just starting to be. i'd imagine before that internet access was limited to those in the universities or the very tech savvy. maybe that it was more sparsely populated with a more homogenous user base kept it relatively conflict free? or maybe before people to cottoned on to its power an immediacy in reaching others and pushing whatever whenever however.
its easy to be cynical about it all, and theres a lot these days to be cynical about. I've always known it to be a cesspool but it also provided me with a way of reaching others and envisioning a world better than the one that I desperately needed to escape from. and importantly it enabled me to make that escape. it still does for me and countless others. jesus fuck that all sounds dreadfully maudlin.
but still. fuck sealions. they are cunts AMassiveGay (talk) 19:42, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
I oscillate constantly between believing the Internet to be a net force for good or bad. Personally, I've benefited from being able to hear from so many people of different cultures than I would have been able to without the Internet, and from easy access to information leaps and bounds above what we're fed in grade school. Colossal Squid (talk) 19:47, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
I think the conservatives might actually be right that a lot of us would do better to live with a lot less internet. It's an addictive drug just like video games , it's like cocaine addiction was in the 80s, except unlike cocaine it can also misinform you. I may be a hypocrite, but at least I recognize the problem, and I can no longer make fun of people for choosing to live without the internet or without looking at a screen like I used to. Hitchensiniraq (talk) 23:48, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────You're mistaken about the internet once being "entirely amicable and fun" in the 1990s, @Shabidoo. The alt.tasteless newsgroup was a cesspool that resembled in some ways what became 4chan. It had a real-life pedophile and self-described predator as regular contributor. Alt.tasteless launched what became the first full-scale troll war. I actually personally knew a major troll from that era (He did not frequent alt.tasteless but he did frequent several other news groups). Bongolian (talk) 04:01, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I never claimed the internet was a perfect paradise, hence the "almost" and "mostly". I was talking through my personal experience. Only once social media came along, did I encounter unpleasantness in my daily internettings. If you searched out douchery yeah certainly you could find it but I don't remember ever seeing flame wars or rape jokes or death threats or grossly offensive shittery in the 90s. And I still found people mostly pleasant in the 2000s coming across nastiness infrequently. Twitter, newspaper comment sections, youtube comment sections and then the media's quoting of what stupid people tweet basically created mass forums for toxic garbage to become highly visible for the average internet user extended beyond the internet into newspapers and even television. Part of my work is identifying vile facebook comments and tracking horrific tweets we recieve on our social media pages. A few times I've had to alert the police. I honestly remember absolutely nothing like that in the 90s. ShabiDOO 11:44, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
The Other Wiki has an article for it. I suspect it's the unavoidable consequence of popularizing it, especially in this age of so portable computers and Internet being pretty much everywhere, but even in the late '90s there were jerks around.
One think that I miss are those times with no captchas and open forums, that allowed everyone to post without being registered. They were an open door for spammers, yes, but you had not at least to solve stupid "check all semaphors/buses/whatever". Panzerfaust (talk) 23:38, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

A Rational opinion on The Socialism within National Socialism[edit]

I've noticed a trend in "logical" progressives to only focus on the first part of the Nazi's name. Blaming everything on the movement's nationalism. Meanwhile on the right people blame socialism. Both approaches are equally wrong in that they lack nuance and a wider scope. Is it fair to say that they were nationalists? Yes. Is it fair to call them socialists, yes. Don't play puritan and say they aren't real socialists. We should try to be better than Scotsmen in that regard. Also decent video on the topic, I can't wait for truly rational opinions to be shared: (talk) 18:28, 9 October 2019 (UTC) you know what, we don't need an embed of your shitty youtube video

Troll harder idiot.RipCityLiberal (talk) 18:29, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Why the fuck would I watch a 15+ min video when I could read the same misinformation in some random wingnut blog in less than 5 minutes? Colossal Squid (talk) 18:35, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Per squid, if you can only make your point by youtube video, you're wrong. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:45, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
The Nazis lied. There, done. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:48, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
The Nazis were very anti-aristocratic and class conscious. They didn't believe in democracy, they believed in socialism -- i.e. the collective values of race (in a godless society). nobsI'm dumbstrzok! 18:53, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, they called it the third kingdom because of how much they hated aristocracy. Shut. The. Fuck. Up. Nobs. If you read the original nazi platform it was basically "we hate jews, we hate france, we hate jews, we hate fake news, we hate jews, we hate academics, we hate jews oh, and I guess rents are too high" in list form. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:59, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Oh, and some of their first victims were socialists, so yeah, there's that... ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:01, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Oh, and I have a better video. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:09, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
It's particularly hilarious when conservatives forget Martin Niemōller poem literally starts with the Nazi's removing Socialists because they were a threat to them.RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:40, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Please note that to the BoN "rational" and "logical" mean "agrees with my presupposed notions of how things work" and not "deduced from the evidence." ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:47, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
aside from anything else, this is all history. if we look at what has become of Nazis and socialists today, and the relative threat they represent, there is clear difference. one brings a threat of violence and intimidation, a threat all too often made real. the other thinks universal health care is quite nice and maybe someday you should try it. clearly two sides of the same coin there. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:20, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
And one made a much better villain for indiana jones. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:29, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
So I went through the "sources" provided by the BoN via copy/pasting the description of the initial video. One leads to a Harry Potter book, five lead to 404 errors, and the remaining four cite Mises.org, which, given the man openly defended Hitler and Fascism as better for Capitalism than Communism, (to use his own words) "does not require any further explanation." So... Yeah. Crap sourcing. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:27, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
The Nazis loved socialists so much that they tried to kill literally all of them. Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 00:23, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
The Nazis were just jealous of socialists and couldn't figure a better way of expressing their love without naming themselves after socialists and then killing them. Tragic. 💔💔💔. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 00:58, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
The Nazis calling what they did socialism was propaganda. Name one modern socialist who honestly believes the best way to fund the state is to systematically take a population's wealth via extremely prejudicial imprisonment and execution. The Nazis used a racial pretense, effectively using/removing the Jewish numbers from their population to fund their expansionist agenda. If you've named one socialist who likes it that way, yeah, that's a red flag, you might know a Nazi. But if you mean you've seen a picture of somebody with an "Eat the Rich" sign and it really freaked you out, get a sense of humor. If you go to a town hall and somebody shouts "we have to eat the babies" and nobody in the Q community knows it's a fucking troll from the first 5 seconds of the video, get a better perspective on how satire works. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 01:45, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The Nazis did have some policies that resemble aspects of modern 'liberal' thinking. They launched the worst anti-tobacco persecution the world had known before my lifetime. Many, including Hitler himself, were besotted with maudlin notions of animal rights and as a result were vegetarians. This doesn't make them 'socialists'; it just makes them authoritarians, the same as all possessed by the demon of Moral Endeavor inevitably become. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 04:21, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Hitler ate sugar, does that mean sugar is bad? Oxyaena Harass 14:30, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
That's what my TV says. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 16:18, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Teaching critical thinking[edit]

How would you guys go about making a curriculum that does so? I personally would try to slowly introduce it to children starting around... 1st to 3rd grade. It wouldn't be a harsh, sudden introduction, it would only begin to teach full on critical thinking starting in 6th to 7th grade. Until then, the seeds would be sown through art and music classes. This is just my take on it, however- I'd like to hear how you'd handle it. Tyrian (talk) 23:23, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm too busy to write a reply, but David Pakman's YouTube channel has a series of short videos about critical thinking which you might find a useful start. There is a grammar to critical thinking which you have to learn to become better at it, but you still need to have a good background in the facts of a field because if you only rely on logic without doing enough research into facts you'll become like Sam Harris when he exits his field and talks about history and gets everything wrong. Hitchensiniraq (talk) 23:37, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I was honestly just thinking about this a couple nights ago. When I was a kid, at book fairs, I had three main go-tos for the one or two books I could get. Choose your own adventure, 101 jokes, and puzzles. I wound up with a couple of "Lateral Thinking Puzzle" books because the word "puzzle" was straight up one of my go-tos. I hated them, because they asked insane questions and had really specific answers in the back. One question that I distinctly remember was about twins who went digging around in a basement. Twin A got dirty, Twin B stayed clean. When they got out of the basement, Twin B went and washed their face, while Twin A stayed dirty. Why? The answers in the back of the book were always like "Ohhh," but also "You didn't give me anywhere enough information to reach that conclusion, these aren't puzzles." But the effort I put in to solving those puzzles, never to get a single one right...
So Lateral Thinking might be something to incorporate in early Critical Thinking curriculum. I was thinking about how maybe it was intended that somebody was supposed to read the question to me and coach me on finding answers to it. That's.... Not applicable to my childhood. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:18, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Critical thinking is a skill, not knowledge. I mean, yeah, there's knowledge to support it, but fundamentally it's about taking your own thoughts and going "how could I be wrong?" That's a task that requires practice to do. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 04:17, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Even for university students critical thinking can be challenging (although that's probably because in school we are exposed to very little of it). I'd start very light with a few logical structures like: All As are Bs and all Bs are Cs. A is a B. Therefore A is a C. and to introduce a few fallacies. But I'd say by far the most important lesson to teach children, quite early, is to learn to critically identify good vs. bullshit websites and sources online. That's difficult to teach to students will very little knowledge in general but I still think the basic principles could be taught at a young age. ShabiDOO 11:51, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
I mean, they actually did teach all that in school for me. Not well but that was definetly covered in middle school. I again restate my assertion that it's something that needs practice and a lot of it. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 13:59, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
That's why I'm advocating for early introduction to the concepts that make it up. So that they have practice with them when they have to actually think critically.Tyrian (talk) 14:51, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
in college I had a logic class which talked about ways people get brought to the wrong conclusions like through the fundemental attribution error. That can probably be moved to highschool in some form Vorarchivist (talk) 16:05, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
We begin our studies assuming a schema or knowledge we regard as the result of common sense. Descartes, a radical at the time, proposed being critical about everything, excepting our common humanity. As has been said, critical thinking is a skill. But the results of applying that skill may vary with respect to what one has already allowed to be true, false, or probable. The ancient Greeks regarded the study of Euclidean geometry as the right method of learning abstract reasoning, a destination toward which, we are told, there is no royal road.Ariel31459 (talk) 16:54, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Just an unbelieving advocate here. Schools actually taught you critical thinking? I mean, cool, if it's true, but I had good experiences in all of my classes because I employed critical thinking. I was in advanced math, my senior year I had a statistics class. My Stats teacher would graph everyone's score.
She said "I am positive everyone here can pass the ap test." I put my hand up and got called on. "Anyone?" "Well, almost everyone in this class." I wasn't exactly ready to hear that shit.Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:22, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
And I mean I couldn't read the numbers. I just couldn't do statistics. I never tried to make them say somethin, and when a dipshit tries to make them say something, I at leas know hot to ask for receipts. I have always been bad at numbers. Quick caveat. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:27, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

After visiting socialblade...[edit]

...I bumped against this page (I checked the site back in July. So I didn't know about any of this, incase someone says it's old news).

Another useless Youtube update, if you ask me. I really don't see the added value of this... Tinribmancer (talk) 11:56, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

This update probably exists to stop a future PewDiePie vs. T-Series from happening. VerminWiki (talk) 05:33, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Why devote years of your life to earn an academic degree when you could just buy one? This is your daily dose of fraud[edit]


Yes, this is a thing. By the way- sorry for not being active that much here- been working on my YouTube channel.

Got to love diploma mills. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 14:37, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

"Buy a Masters Degree in Metaphysics and Casino Management." That would be a strange degree. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 02:17, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Blizzard censorship of Hong Kong protesters[edit]

Apparently they took away the prize money of a professional hearthstone player and banned him for supporting Hong Kong as well as fired two casters that were interviewing him at the time. Vorarchivist (talk) 16:22, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, and it seems like a lot of people (Blizzard employees and ex-developers included) are pissed off about it. Good. Soundwave106 (talk) 16:59, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Activision-Blizzard is just a bunch of cowards that care more for their bottom line than people's living conditions. I know this isn't surprising, since Activision gotta Activision. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 20:53, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Every company that does business in China is afraid to cross China on stuff like this, even if it means punishing their employees who have nothing to do with China. Some, like Facebook, are actually complicit in helping China censor stuff domestically. One of the dark sides to our global economy is that totalitarianism can ooze over from dictatorships into democracies like this. Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 22:09, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't know if it's an urban legend or not, but the Pandaren -a race of sentient pandas- began life having a Japanese-inspired culture back in the Warcraft III days. When they were featured on a past WoW expansion, their culture were changed to a Chinese-like one, as basically China disliked that. Panzerfaust (talk) 22:58, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

RationalWiki's userbase turnover[edit]

Are there any prolific editors left from the early days of this wiki? It seems like the userbase has almost completely turned over to new members in the past few years. Colossal Squid (talk) 18:51, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

hasn't lefty and commie been here for a while? Vorarchivist (talk) 19:38, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
GC is much newer than LGM. Years. And I slightly predate LGM, and am far from "early days". ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:48, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Oh goddamn it, nobs is the oldest still active user isn't he. Fuck. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:49, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I officially registered in April 2014, but I was under an IP a month ago and maybe was making drive-by edits earlier. I'm no "early days" though. "Middle guard" would be accurate description for me. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 20:12, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Some of the original editors poke their heads in occasionally, but none are still prolific editors. David Gerard for example started in 2010 and has edited as recently as today. User:Human started in 2007 and edited as recently as this past July. Bongolian (talk) 20:20, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
@Vorarchivist I registered in 2016 and then made zero edits for half a year before becoming a semi-regular editor. But I'd also been a lurker for a few years before that. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:14, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

There are probably quite a few occasional passers through - and the other place has a 10 year society. Anna Livia (talk) 22:40, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I joined on 13 September 2011 and I've made as near as damnit at least one edit every single day since then. Although I'm resigned to the genuine old guard, those who've been here since 2007, still seeing me as a johnny-come-lately and never accepting me as one of them. A lot of the users who've made the most impact are very active for 3 years and then either completely disappear or only drop in occasionally after that. And I think the phenomenon of leftists turning right with age will mean that in the future we'll get plenty more former editors occasionally coming by to moan that RationalWiki isn't like it was back in the day anymore and that it's all gone too politically correct. Spud (talk) 00:39, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
I've noticed the userbase seems to be becoming more leftist over time. Reading the fossil record, a lot of the profilic old guard editors had a strong liberal/libertarian, anti-communist perspective, which makes for awkward articles like the one on globalization which seems to be fighting with itself. Also, during the Gamergate kerfuffle, there were indeed old guard members (I know of FuzzyCatPotato specifically) annoyed with the influx of new anti-GG editors and claiming the wiki was becoming too politically correct. It's been interesting to observe, though it makes a lot of our political articles look dated nowadays. Colossal Squid (talk) 00:59, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
I`m probably the farthest left person on here lol. Oxyaena Harass 08:09, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
You sure about that ;) - I know I'm inactive (irl is a pain and mental health issues and a bunch of other stuff) but I'm pretty leftist ^.^ ⏣sapient_cogbag⏣ talk 21:34, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Well, you have "Communist" on your user page, while I simply stuck with "Socialist," although I do have anarchist sympathies. Colossal Squid (talk) 15:53, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
I mean, we are at 51 topics on the saloon bar. Maybe hope has left us all. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:41, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
I started my user page in 2013, so that's probably a fair estimate of around when I started editing. No idea what generation that makes me. I am fairly politically different from the run of the mill user here; I spent many years as a criminal appeal lawyer, which makes me the only real leftist here. I still believe in free speech and the presumption of innocence, and I hate Moral Endeavor no matter what the cause is. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 02:43, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Oh woe is me. Oxyaena Harass 07:36, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

RW started primarily to take the piss out of Conservapedia, and to rebut creationist and other anti-science nonsense. And it was always on pretty solid ground doing so. Political coverage was mostly confined to mocking obvious wingnuts and the occasional moonbat, for the entirely sensible reason of focusing on stuff that was demonstrably wrong.

That line got harder to hold as the userbase developed. Things like Elevatorgate in 2011, and Atheism Plus in 2012, posed some legitimate questions of the sceptic community, inspiring a more activist stance on politics and social justice, and that wave really hit here around 2014.

Cue some decent articles, and a slew of others that read like the work of a bright-eyed, 1st year Cultural Studies student who's really, really fucking excited because they've found The Answer and are going to fix the world. (The Gamergate article was a tangentially-related clusterfuck. Go read the talk page archives sometime.)

The wave eventually broke and rolled back a bit, but its legacy is basically politics articles written according to personal preference, with weird counter-commentaries (On the other hand...) mid-paragraph. Oh, and epic pissing contests over the likes of Clinton / Sanders or Israel / Palestine.

Memory's a strange beast, though. Doubtless someone will have a completely different take. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 03:22, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I've been here since 2012 in some form, 2014 with this account. Oxyaena Harass 07:46, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
As a Brit my views may well be 'to the left of the US, but centrist UK.'
There are will also be some in the 'what was my username last time I pottered around RW, might as well create a new one... I disagree with that remark (oh, that was my previous username)' category. Anna Livia (talk) 10:18, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
I've been here since 2012 after a long lurk, though I really didn't start contributing much until a few months after then. Cosmikdebris (talk) 16:03, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
I started in 2014 and have been one of the most active contributors throughout this time period. I stayed out of Gamergate for lack of interest in video games, but I now see it as worthy article that documents one of the antecedents to the alt-right. Regarding the issue of political correctness, take a look at the Blazing Saddles page that I recently started (I will probably complete it in a week or so): it's an interesting case of liberal political incorrectness serving as a teaching tool, though some (i.e., Conservapedians) may never understand. Bongolian (talk) 19:03, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
I've been here since 2016. I poke around rarely.—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3 Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 02:34, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Buncha kids. 2007 here and counting. Avida Dollarsher again 09:51, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Oh my god, I never clicked your userpage. I had no idea who you were. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:37, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

We are going to die again: end of the world prediction for December 21st of this year[edit]


It seems that the events start on the 21st of December and end on the 28th of the same month. So should I try weed now knowing that we all going to die? Been on my bucket list. Doomsayers are idiots --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:52, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Gotta admit we have the best candidate for the Antichrist in years. Nobody else has done so well at deceiving the faithful. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 02:46, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
These weirdos love predicting the end of the world on the winter solstice for some goddamn reason. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:04, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Oh cool, world's ending on my birthday again.--NavigatorBR(Talk) - 21:12, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Got an idea, one of us should write a book claiming the world will end soon and make mountains of cash on it. Seems to be crazy easy. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 21:14, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
People always pick the winter solstice for the end of the world because the 2 1/2 months of Exmas make it worth looking forward to. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 16:15, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Borderline Zombies?[edit]

We've been experiencing the end of the world several times now. Does this mean we are all a bunch of zombies, but we are afraid to look in the mirror and see the truth? Tinribmancer (talk) 11:09, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Nobs is a philosophical zombie, I'd wager. Oxyaena Harass 21:04, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Nobs, in no way, shape, or form, acts like a normal human being from the outside. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 00:38, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Can the Douglas Adams quote about loving the sound of deadlines whooshing by be repurposed to end of the world predictions?

One end-of-the-world did occur on 21st December. Anna Livia (talk) 16:48, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

"Q: The Plan To Save The World" is this worth an article digging into it?[edit]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cYZ8dUgPuU So check this out! 13 minute long documentary talking a lot of shit about some mysterious big bad guys who hate America that we cant even see. Refers to a lot of "they". Calls out lots of presidents as "criminals" but is also saying Trump is a innocent saint and is gona save us all. Hmmm... Its full of fallacies, and the guy who made the video is a walking oxy-moron. Is this worth making an article about or atleast making a section about in the existing QAnon page? I have plenty of things to debunk about it! Bracket (talk) 03:07, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I can't really argue against it since that video has well over a million views. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 03:13, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
I think I'll make the whole page, theres some pretty important things to see about the guy himself who made the video Bracket (talk) 03:19, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
I saw that. "Oxy-moron" smh. Oxyaena Harass 07:33, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't see why Q - The Plan To Save The World can't be in the QAnon article.—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3 Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 02:40, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Dealing with Hopelessness[edit]

Going through my news feeds recently have honestly left me feeling like there is no hope for the world. The planet is burning or sinking, the people responsible for it are still going to be in charge, and I really can't see a way out of this. Does anyone know what I mean, having a sense of political powerlessness and despair? Does anyone know how to combat it? RoninMacbeth (talk) 14:40, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I know what you mean, and I honestly feel the same way sometimes. Oxyaena Harass 14:54, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Build a guillotine, it's a fun craft project! ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:06, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
I feel that way every single day. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 15:09, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Join a political action group. I've noticed, both from personal experience and from observing others, that simply being around other people who care about things does wonders for one's mood. I'm going to a post-election planning meeting today (as in, we know the result is likely going to suck, so it's about how we take climate action afterwards regardless), and researching ideas for that meeting had rekindled my interest in Latin American protest movements, some which are pretty impressive in scale (Ecuador's indigenous population deposed 3 leaders in the span of 8 years, for instance). So change is possible, but it requires a lot of momentum building.
Also, while dabbling in the climate doomer fringe, I've noticed that the common thread in those doomsday scenarios is that the world will suck because of selfish people. In other words, hell is other people. However, it doesn't have to be. There are plenty of real-world examples of communities building resilience in the face of disaster, such as Special Period Cuba, or post-hurricane Puerto Rico or New Orleans, the former which deposed a governor over the crisis. Unlike what Thatcher said, there are alternatives, and the most marginalized communities among us are best positioned to lead those alternatives because rational self-interest to them is co-operation. As long as you can imagine a better world, then you can meet up people interested in building that world. Colossal Squid (talk) 15:40, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
@RB: Imagining one has power may be hazardous to ones health. If you are trying to do that, I would advise against it. What you can do is understand what is happening around you now. Politics is local. Anything individuals could do would be local. No one can peripherally effect the future. Life on Earth will probably continue for about 2.8 billion years, until the sun becomes a red giant. Who knows what we will have become by then. The presence of children encourages adults to be resolute. Consider starting a family and your descendants might be there to see for themselves what we will become at the end of the line. Ariel31459 (talk) 20:17, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Easy solution: Stop subscribing to fake news; start reading The Good News. nobsNo border! No Wall! No USA at All! 05:19, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
And what would be The Good News, nobsie? Conservapedia? Hahaha! Tinribmancer (talk) 11:13, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
when someone starts to tell you about the good news, it usually means they are going to tell you about jesus. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:30, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Come unto me all you who are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. nobsNo border! No Wall! No USA at All!
Thanks, but no thanks, nobs. If I did reconvert to Christianity, all I would wonder is why a perfect God will not help us. At least with the faith I currently practice, I acknowledge that, if something is to be done, we must be the ones to do it. RoninMacbeth (talk) 02:03, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
is jesus some sort of hooker? AMassiveGay (talk) 18:55, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
No, but there is a difference. Tinribmancer (talk) 21:10, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Ronan, why a perfect God will not help us. He did. John 3:16. nobsNo border! No Wall! No USA at All! 20:27, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
If by help you mean, leaving a bunch of babies in a bathtub filled with vinegar and knives and giving a band-aid to the few who survive, then yes. God certainly helped. His responsible parenting and incredible paternal care certainly brought relief to those who didn't slowly die in agony. What more could you possibly ask of an omnipotent morally perfect being? ShabiDOO 20:59, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Religion as a way of dealing with hopelessness[edit]

It's a relatively simple case of lying to yourself that things aren't actually bad when they are. That there is hope, it's just beyond understanding. Which: A. Sucks shit as a solution because non-comprehendable hope evaporates in an instant when you grapple with something truly challening. And B. Sucks shit because it defers you away from genuinely fixing problems you see.

My advice, as much as anyone should trust me(and you shouldn't) is that you should identify a problem, no matter how small, that you can fix, and fix it. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:30, 14 October 2019 (UTC)


I've just moved Schlockumentary over to main space. If you can think of more examples, please feel free to add. I think this has the capacity to be bronze-level, since it ties many fringe/conspiracy elements together, and I have not seen a fun treatment of this phenomenon elsewhere. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 00:32, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't know about the world being perfect[edit]


I hear people say that a lot but this sounds like more of a security blanket or narrative that places humans at the center of the universe. Much of his logic implies a bunch of what if scenarios or that there are lessons to learn (but there aren't, that's just us making it appear so). I mean objectively speaking events and situations simply are, but it's us that give them meaning. Objectively there is no better or worse but I doubt that people would want to experience poverty or war, and I can definitely say many people would think being perfectly healthy is better, we just cope when we aren't.Machina (talk) 02:49, 12 October 2019 (UTC)


There is also this bit which just sounds more like escapism to me, but then again people believe what they want to believe. I mean you can believe you aren't a body and a mind but that doesn't make it so.Machina (talk) 02:54, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree, situations are pretty well described as "situations." Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:53, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

It’s just reading both links shows me how something can go from reasonable to bat shit.Machina (talk) 05:09, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Oh good. That's a good insight. What kind of mental or rhetorical process do you think allows that transition to happen? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:33, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure really, it just seems iffy. It's like they want everything to mean something and be designed but....Machina (talk) 01:12, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Blah blah blah, yadda yadda, resident nihilist here. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:21, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

A book for an article[edit]

Does anyone have a free PDF of Yehuda Nevo's Crossroads to Islam. I would like to see what it has, for my article on Revisionist History of Islam. Teerthaloke101 (talk) 05:17, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

That book was apparently withdrawn from publication for some reason, though it's rather common at libraries. You can see if it's at a library near you here:[15] Bongolian (talk) 02:24, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Not in India. My government bans any book that questions the beliefs of Muslims (or Hindus).Teerthaloke101 (talk) 06:45, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Kahlil Gibran[edit]

Who is this guy? I read up on him a little bit but I don't know why everyone thinks he's so special. It reminds me of Tolle more or less.Machina (talk) 00:33, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

The Lebanese American guy who wrote a poem on rain? Teerthaloke101 (talk) 06:44, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
ones a noted artist, poet, and writer, the other isn't AMassiveGay (talk) 09:02, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I know the "noted" part but having read a few parts of his work I really don't fathom why or how.Machina (talk) 01:11, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

that's real damning criticism there. well done. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:38, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
it’s just I don’t see what others see. I reads more like spiritual fluff.Machina (talk) 16:55, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
a poet leans to the spiritual side of things? what a surprise. if you don't like spiritual stuff, don't read spiritual stuff. its not difficult. AMassiveGay (talk) 00:08, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Anyone here vape[edit]

If so what’s your fave vape/juice/coils/etc? (talk) 11:16, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Planet of the Humans - Documentary criticizing renewable energy[edit]

Anyone seen it yet? Official site is here, and there's also a Counterpunch writeup. One of the things it posits that because wind turbines and solar use fossil fuels in their construction, a Green New Deal would actually kill us faster.

Honestly, I want to see the documentary to see if they actually back up their claims with numbers. People in the industry already know that the production side of renewable energy has a sizable carbon footprint, but from every projection I've seen, they more than make up for it in the long run. Obviously, society does need to stop consuming so much, and I agree with points like electric cars being a half-measure compared to actually taking cars off the road, but we are a skeptic site after all, and I feel that people's justified fear of the climate crisis leaves them vulnerable to exaggerated misinformation. Plus, I've learned to be instantly skeptical of anyone who claims "Why isn't anyone talking about this?" Colossal Squid (talk) 17:09, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

This seems, based on your nonfictionfilm link, to be one of those "all pollution is made equal" fallacies that tend to catch certain kinds of environmentalists hard.
"In these wind turbines, there's up to 800 pounds of copper, there's 1 to 2 tons of rare earth metals," he notes.
Well, yeah. Things are made from other things, and mining is extremely environmentally destructive, local to the mine. And that's damage that can be mitigated, though not entirely, with sound environmental policies surrounding mining.
"The initial refining turns quartz into metallurgical-grade silicon, a substance used mostly to harden steel and other metals," notes IEEE Spectrum, an engineering and applied sciences publication. "That happens in giant furnaces, and keeping them hot takes a lot of energy."
Electric furnaces are perfectly functional thing, and, again, if our policies guided us as such, they could be 100% powered with renewables, at only small increases in what economists call "real cost".
The crisis of today's renewable creation is yesterday's inaction, and this "everything has a cost" zero-sum game bullshit is just that, bullshit. What it amounts to is a neomalthusian screed about how there's too many people(odd that the vast majority of emissions are to cater to the interests of a small part of them).
I don't disagree that we should have a long-term planet-wide goal of finding a stable homeostasis of human population that allows for nature to thrive, shortages to be minimized, everyone to live a first world lifestyle, but the conclusions do not follow from the presented evidence. At all. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:37, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
It took me only a few seconds to Google carbon footprint per energy produced estimates from factcheck.org that mean I don't have to spend n minutes wasting my time watching what appears to be a scare film on completely bollocks principle. (There is probably some predictable anarcho-primitivism type advocacy in the movie, I'll bet, that certainly would be a hard sell to most... certainly one of the articles seemed to imply a Mathus style "we've got to reduce the population by billions!" exaggeration as "the solution".) Soundwave106 (talk) 21:20, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Anprims are the worst. I wonder what the carbon footprint of making this worthless movie that resists real action was. Probably pretty big. Like measured in household-years big. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:50, 14 October 2019 (UTC)


Does anyone know who this guy is (I know who he is, but I'm wondering whether others on this site know him)? And, yes once you know who he is and what he stands for, you'll agree that he's on mission. Tinribmancer (talk) 19:06, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

If this were the SAT I'd definitely pick "E. Not able to determine from information provided" ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:10, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
His name is Dries Van Langenhove. Leader of an Alt-Right Students Group called "Schild & Vrienden" (in english: "Shield & Friends"). Special reportage on these clowns (put on the english subs. They aren't automatically generated by youtube.) This documentary had some backlash and a bit of an aftermath.
Oh, and "Rol uw matten" does not translate to "call it quits" (no clue why they translated it this way...), but to "Roll Your Carpets". According to this group, if you don't support their point of view, you're a de facto left-wing cuck that has converted to the Islam. Tinribmancer (talk) 21:43, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Biases on wikis, analytical paper[edit]

The abstract. No paywall. I can't really find any useful feedback from it. Other than we apparently describe men as thoughtful far more than our wikipedia friends or conservapedia enemies. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:12, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

"...biases...surprisingly occur not only in Conservapedia and RationalWiki, but in Wikipedia as well. ... both Conservapedia and Wikipedia associate 'pleasant' with 'Christianity,' possibly indicating a violation of Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy." Yeah, not a surprise. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 19:30, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't think anyone thinks wikipedia is unbiased. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:48, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
As long as wiki editing remains white male American-dominated (it is, right?), I'm pretty sure that sort of activity is going to get tilted. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 21:42, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Yahtzee Crosshaw thinks wikipedia is a good source of information (for some reason). Tinribmancer (talk) 21:45, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
I think it's a good source of general information, just as long as you keep a skeptical eye and check the sources. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 21:49, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
I think wikipedia's favoritism for books as sources has actually done it some harm, in that it's a lot harder to verify sources than it used to be, even if the overall quality of citations is higher. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:51, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
I think this is the most significant takeaway from the study for us: "These results show nevertheless that classical gender stereotypes exist across all three datasets". We can always do better. ShabiDOO 22:04, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
And it's not like books are more or less prone to shortcomings as anything else. Books do give a sheen of legitimacy, though. I think book sources should have screenshots attached to them as well as page number just for an idea, unless that also violates copyright or something.
So, how should we do better? I don't see much of a pattern exclusive to how we deal with women yet, but I did remove some personal remarks (which I can't say if it's exclusive to articles on women). --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 22:43, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
It's not an easy topic. If Gwyneth Paltrow uses her fame to promote beauty products rather than intellectual development, is it perpetuating stereotypes to report on that, or does the blame lie exclusively with her? Or do we blame the society that values her beauty and forces her to focus on it? (BTW, a denunciation of sexist beauty standards would doubtless score as beauty=female by the crude methods of those researchers.) Anything based on existing knowledge, learning, or research is tied into a patriarchal, male-biased system, so what probably matters is being less biased than other sources and shifting the mainstream. --Annanoon (talk) 13:41, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia's prime use is as 'a point of first resort' (and possibly 'if it is not yet on Wikipedia it may be a good topic for a research project'). Anna Livia (talk) 10:05, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Agreed — and further to the conceit behind the study, see this paper. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 14:12, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Question - "leaving and never coming back"[edit]

I've seen an acronym for this on here, and am looking for some snark to use when people post such messages in various groups - can someone point me in the right direction please? I've search the university of google without success :( thanks. Aloysius the Gaul 21:59, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I thought LANCB stood for Lesbian and Non-binary Cuck Bastard, seriously. nobsNo border! No Wall! No USA at All! 01:06, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Sigh... usually, Nobbsie, your semi-trolls have some style to them, some semblance of an actual point, of a realistic position. They make some sort of statement, even if that statement is "Hello! I'm the resident semi-parody of a conservative here!"
But that? Honestly? That one was just sad. Pathetic, really. If you really want to bring out the rage of the likes of Ikanreed or Oxy, you'll need to do a far better job than that. I've seen more effective trolling on Reddit, for pity's sake. Hardly up to you usual standards. Kencolt (talk) 04:40, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
LMAO, I saw that. Oxyaena Harass 13:33, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
I think that I pushed Nobs over the edge to his true vulgarian self when I challenged his virility ability to work things out with a pencil (User talk:RobSmith/Archive 08#How do you feel; User talk:RobSmith/Archive 08#Congratulations). Bongolian (talk) 18:48, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
'Virility' and 'pencil' can make an interesting conjunction for a fanfic writer :) Anna Livia (talk) 16:42, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Perfect world part 2[edit]

I’m sorry again for posting this again but it’s just driving me crazy. I know it’s long but I haven’t found a way around it yet and I need help.

Yeah, it’s tough not to judge the lower stages. You really gotta grow into deep Yellow and Turquoise in order to be able to look upon Blue and the other stages without animosity. At Turquoise there is a deep realization that everything within reality is necessary and perfect. When you realize that, you see that every person is precisely where they must be. It makes no sense any longer to blame or criticize people for their ignorance because they know not what they do and they cannot help themselves.

The only way to attain peace for yourself is to totally drop all judgment of people and reality. And this can only happen by becoming conscious of the truth of nonduality. You have to realize that self/other are literally identical.

If you accomplish that, you will be left with unconditional love for all. You will see the world the way God sees it: perfect as it is.

One of the biggest obstacles to enlightenment is giving up all your judgments, demonizations, and criticisms of reality.

Imagine being unable to judge anyone or anything ever again. Such a notion scares most people. Unconditional love is very radical. The ego cannot stand it. It’s too dangerous from the ego’s perspective.

At the deepest levels of nonduality all action is pointless. You could just shoot yourself and it would be okay. It’s all perfect. Teaching is pointless of course. But in practice you will probably just carry on with life, for shits and giggles, and probably teach.

The world cannot be improved in any way at all. It is an Absolute singularity, and everything is already contained within it for eternity. But this is not something that can be explained, and it certainly sits outside of Spiral Dynamics so I don’t even talk about it. You will only discover this for yourself, at the very deepest levels of nondual consciousness. At which point, you will no longer need me or anyone else to guide you.

It’s based on this: http://www.cruxcatalyst.com/wp-content/uploads/spiral-dynamic-image.jpg and this is the thread: https://www.actualized.org/forum/topic/22271-leos-stage-blue-video-is-good/

Agin I’m very sorry about the length but I just need help because I’m at my wits end. I keep seeing valid point about reality being empty of our judgments and opinions.Machina (talk) 04:12, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Color woo woo. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:16, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
"It's not practicalities that confuse people, but opinions about practicalities." —Epictetus CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 13:19, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
A thick layer of meaningless woo drivel on top of a tiny nugget of the real concept of moral developmentWikipedia. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:33, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
But how or why? I mean he mentions the part about how everything is necessary and perfect but I don’t know. To me everything just IS and “necessary” implies a will or agent or judge and additionally some end goal or purpose. Part of me wants to go to his website and call him out on it.Machina (talk) 19:35, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
But then again I wonder if what he means is that everything is connected and builds upon other things and that without the previous things the next ones would not be possible. Like without the environment on EArth then life wouldn't be possible, and without plants and oxygen we wouldn't breath. But for some reason I after knowing that I have this intuition inside of me that says that necessary isn't the word for it.Machina (talk) 20:52, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
In regards to this second point, take a look at the anthropic principle. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:11, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I knew I heard about that somewhere before. That just because everything is connected in a sense doesn't necessarily make any of it necessary at all. IT just IS, period. I want to go to the site and call them out, but when I tried that on the youtube no one listened and I was just ignored.Machina (talk) 21:42, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I get spun up too. You really shouldn't expect an amount of answers to be the baseline to which you judge your own arguments. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:27, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

It's just that this really gets to me because it's like nothing matter and why bother. That I can kill myself and it will be fine.Machina (talk) 05:17, 17 October 2019 (UTC) Also I don’t think that the Anthropic principal applies here because it doesn’t seem to be based on humans. It’s more like how things wouldn’t be able to exist without other things. Like trees and water and the atmosphere, or a chain of events that requires one for the rest to happen. Like how the beginning of the universe led to here. We humans judge some things to be pests and unneeded when I think he’s saying it’s all necessary and perfect. Like if you didn’t suffer you wouldn’t appreciate the good and things like that. But part of me still thinks that’s not true. Nothing is perfect for how can you judge it perfect, the same with necessary. Sure things wouldn’t be possible without other things but that doesn’t make anything in reality necessary, it just IS. But for some reason I don’t believe that.Machina (talk) 19:07, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

And for some reason, I'm here too. And I totally agree, all these things are totally diminishing, and they should be. A dude pulled up to my work with a dead bird caught in his grill. How do you hit a bird with your car? Well, you either try to or you don't. Otherwise, it is very easy to not hit a bird with your car. He's an OK human, there isn't much to a bird, they will make more birds, but you have a pretty unique opportunity to observe/catalogue your perception of the universe. If the Fermi Paradox is to be taken seriously, we don't really have time for you to need things to be perfect. We need you to observe and catalogue the world. And we need a record of your perspective. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:55, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I don’t think you are quite grasping what I am saying. Saying you’re here for a reason isn’t true.Machina (talk) 17:48, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Cat will step on the Quran[edit]

After this video- https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aZqEOc0C69A a few other videos gave been posted on YouTube that try to show cat not stepping on the Quran. Anyone here has an Arabic Quran? Teerthaloke101 (talk) 13:38, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

You need to test with The God Delusion as a control. Although possibly it proves that a religious text is a poor foundation for anything, even a cat. --Annanoon (talk) 13:43, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Aside, if you performed this experiment with a dog, and the dog did step on it, that'd be a big old blasphemy to some kinds of people. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:36, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Dogs should be stoned to death for blasphemy. It's the godly thing to do. Oxyaena Harass 16:34, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't often resort to violence, but I'll kill anyone who so much tosses a pebble at my doggy. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:59, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
We can solve this peacefully with a comprehensive double-blind study. Four books, identical in size and appearance, will be produced, under two titles. the first will be entitled Kitty, Step on This and be Dawkins. The second will be entitled Kitty, Step on This and be the Quran. The third will be entitled Kitty, Don't Step on This and be Dawkins. The fourth will be entitled Kitty, Don't Step on This and be the Quran. Production will consist of 1,000 books per version, and a random sampling of 4,000 cats will be recruited, with a balance of age, breed, and gender in each of four sample sets. My hypothesis is that cats are contrarians and will step on Kitty, Don't Step on This more, regardless of what it actually contains. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 17:06, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Does this cat also step or sit on The Bible? If so, then cats are officially atheïsts. Tinribmancer (talk) 18:41, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Now, that's utter nonsense. Cats, quite to the contrary, are absolute deists. Every cat, everywhere and everywhen, is and has been one hundred percent certain of the existence of God.
They also are certain that they are said God, so... Kencolt (talk) 21:34, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Mocha Dick[edit]

Moby Dick is apparently based on a real whale, Mocha DickWikipedia, this thing was the terror of the seas for four decades off the coast of Chile. It had 19 harpoons lodged in its skin, this thing was a genuine beast. Jesus Christ, it was smart too, when attacked it used cunning tactics to swamp the would be whalers, and boy did it deliver. Oxyaena Harass 13:57, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Bongo goes to film school[edit]

Or,[16] if you prefer, Bongo Goes to Bitburg.[17] The Blazing Saddles page is more-or-less complete. Bongolian (talk) 20:10, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I should watch this film -- the closest I have seen was The Frisco Kid, with that great scene trying to explain God. It should make a nice change from the horrible conspiracy documentaries I've been looking at lately (including some I didn't even add to the page, such as Hollywood Ghost Stories and The Mystery Beneath). CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 21:10, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Color me confused. How is Blazing Saddles on-mission for RW? Even if it is on-mission, is there a need to include the entire dialog script? Nowhere Man (talk) 02:51, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
The missionality is primarily because the film deals with racism as a major theme. I included the full screenplay because it's a critique that is heavily annotated (60+ notes within the screenplay). Bongolian (talk) 07:36, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

ContraPoints now best friends with Glinner-friendly transmed Buck Angel[edit]

In her latest video, Opulence, Contra has collaborated with Buck Angel. Notorious truscum "real transsexual" Buck Angel, hater of the "transgender agenda" and friend of Graham. Only a MONTH after her last controversy after she made problematic comments about non-binary people. Was this supposed to prove she didn't hold those views? Was this supposed to be her return to form? How can this be taken as ANYTHING but a dogwhistle???
Thread by Calliethulhu that sums up my thoughts. Minish (talk) 20:13, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Maybe, we should get a page on this Buck Angel person? From what I'm reading here, she's definitely on mission. Tinribmancer (talk) 20:55, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Oh god that's not a name I should have googled from work. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:02, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Buck Angel is definitely worth a page, might starting writing a draft tomorrow morning if I'm not beaten to it Minish (talk) 21:31, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Buck Angel's a piece of shit. I definitely second this. Oxyaena Harass 21:37, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
It's up! Minish (talk) 18:35, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
After reading this tweet and the newer reactions, are you thinking that Contrapoints is becoming the new Blaire White? Tinribmancer (talk) 18:48, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
God, I hope not! She has been making the same mistake but increasingly WORSE for so long, to the point that now she's friendly with Buck Angel, who is for all intents and purposes effectively the transmasc Blaire White. I can't see a situation where she hasn't always been a transmed and maybe a full on truscum anymore. She's done good things but those good things don't excuse endorsements of a enbyphobe so bad that he's friends with GRAHAM! Minish (talk) 18:59, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
I wonder if that didn't raise an eyebrow with Harris, since he did call him out and also held a livestream to collect money (he even got Cortez & Jim Sterling on his stream)... Tinribmancer (talk) 01:12, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
This is insane. This is all insane. Natalie would know who she is working with, a piece on opulence wouldn't be done haphazardly. I think it might actually be part of the piece. It starts by stating we would want to kill for this. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:41, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Also, not anyone being insane, sorry, I wouldn't call a person that. I mean, my possible interpretation of all the data I've just been bombarded with. It doesn't make sense at face value, that's what I mean by insane. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:57, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Lacy Green also did a 180° turn, remember? Tinribmancer (talk) 09:58, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
There is no observation more horrifying than the observation that this has happened before Minish (talk) 10:34, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I remember when Buck Angel was collaborating with "post-porn modernist"/feminist Annie Sprinkle.Wikipedia Bongolian (talk) 04:57, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Political Legitimacy[edit]

What makes a government or a political institution legitimate? Is there a universal way to determine legitimacy as a practical matter?

And the same question goes for political discourse. Is there a way to see if certain political opinions are "illegitimate?" My answer would be that an ideology is politically "illegitimate" if it calls for the active physical harm or political disenfranchisement of people of people who have not committed any crime or offense which would be proportionately answerable with such measures in a free and civil society. Granted, that answer contains a few asterisks as well, but it's a start. RoninMacbeth (talk) 20:38, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Definitely no universal way. In what we've come to call "liberal democracy", institutions' legitimacy comes from having a rules-based process based on some kind of universal vote among members of the organization for determining the future of the organization, and some recognition of some set of universal rights. "Liberal democracy" is a convention, not a universal law.
I don't think violence has a thing to do with legitimacy in that order. Violence directed at dissidents or threats to stability is part of a fairly "normal" self-preservation function of governments.
Liberal democracy has several attributes you didn't list though: due process, rule of law, universal human rights, peaceful transitions of power. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:48, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
True, so does that mean that liberal democracy is the most legitimate form of government? What does this mean given that liberalism and/or democracy is coming under increasing fire? RoninMacbeth (talk) 20:56, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Well, I'll say that "most legitimate form of government" is probably something every single ideology under the sun claim for themselves, theocrats, monarchists, liberal democrats, communists, ethnonationalists, they all think they have the one true basis of government as part of their ideology, or in the case of anarchists, the one true basis of no government. I'm not sure that should fall into some kind of moral relativism but for modes of government, but I'd be wary of excessive certainty about it.
And liberalism is coming increasingly under fire, because there are some very obvious problems coming from it, and all those other ideologies are promising themselves as panaceas for those problems. Oh fuck I'm turning into a goddamn Hegelian. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:08, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Political legitimacy is best determined by the complacency of the governed, if you haven't sufficiently pissed off your populace enough for them to revolt yet it's a safe bet for the time being you are legitimate. Oxyaena Harass 21:36, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
I would say that like all institutions, legitimacy either comes from the willingness of people to accept it as legitimate, and/or the institutions willingness to enforce its authority. For example, liberal democracies only remain legitimate (generally) when they are accepted by those they govern, and they feel it is meeting their needs. They lose that primarily when they no longer have that support (i.e. fixed elections, unresponsive to needs), which has two remedies; new elections or violence. But with authoritarian governments (Russia, China, the Philippines, Thailand, Egypt) their legitimacy is accepted because they have all the necessary levers to enforce it, including violence, but usually through political structures and indoctrination education. That support only disappears when their enforcement disappears, like when the military took its support away from the Egyptian and Thai governments. The question I think you are actually asking is what makes a government or political institution righteous, because in that sense I think there is a clear difference between governments that actively attempt to make the lives of their citizens better without violating the rights of others, and doesn't attempt to profit off the resources of their nation at the expense of their citizens. That also would include less governments, including less liberal democracies.RipCityLiberal (talk) 22:28, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
When you lose the complacency of the governed it's only a matter of time before you fall. It's why bread and circuses are a thing. Oxyaena Harass 06:01, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
There’s not exactly a “correct” answer that anyone can really point to. At best, all that can be provided are a set of possibilities.
It could be useful to break the possible answers down into a spectrum and highlight some of the parts of that spectrum.
We could start at one end with the claim that all governments are legitimate. The state’s authority is derived from its special status qua government authority. In this circumstance, any opinions that destabilize or threaten the integrity of the state would be considered illegitimate and subject to censorship.
From there we could slide down a little and make some requirements of the state. The smallest requirement is basic security: the state is legitimate so long as it can protect its citizens. Within this range you could start out with protecting it from foreign enemies, and slowly add on to that the ability to protect from not just violent insurrections, but criminal acts as well. In these cases, whatever opinions are “illegitimate” would basically be determined by whoever gets to wield the power.
Moving a bit more, we could add some further requirements to just the mere preservation of life. So let’s add what we’ll call “basic rights.” We can start with property rights, and then add political or civil rights such as speech, press, etc. In this range, a government is only legitimate so long as it can protect those rights, although what exactly those rights mean and when the government oversteps its boundaries is fuzzy. The debates about the legitimacy of the state and the illegitimacy of opinions (i.e. what kinds of opinions can be suppressed) are going to go hand-in-hand: whatever opinions are illegitimate are entirely proscribed from public debate, and the state’s effort suppress those opinions are entirely legitimate. So within this range, we get more and less expansive ideas of what those rights are and what illegitimate government actions/illegitimate opinions are.
A bit further along, you can demand that the state not simply protect rights, but that the laws conform to a moral standard. When those moral standards start to become fairly strict or expansive, particularly about preserving autonomy (hence in some way this answer coincides to a strong degree with the previous one), then the government can have very little scope for legitimate action, and any step outside of that small boundary renders it illegitimate. You could call this a fairly libertarian view of legitimacy, and as a consequence the opinions that could called “illegitimate” are going to narrowly defined. You’d probably get a roughly similar standard to the “imminent lawless action” standard from Brandenburg v. Ohio.
At the other extreme would be the claim that no government is legitimate, for any reason. Although at this point whether an anarchic philosophy would consider any particular set of opinions to be illegitimate is a bit hazy, and is outside my wheelhouse. --Mabian (talk) 00:24, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Christ. I'll just leave this here. As good a primer as any. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 02:35, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Frank Turek coming to my university[edit]

Apparently, Frank Turek is coming to the University of Alaska Anchorage to do a talk Monday (Oct. 21st). I'm sorely tempted to go try to chew him out, but I'm worried I'll just make a fool of myself. What do?

Menoshe (talk) 22:46, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Ask him to prove God exists in a very polite manner. When he ends up going on for awhile act like a confused idiot and ask him again. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:59, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Try to connect to other students that find him disagreeable and see what their plans are. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 00:47, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it. Oxyaena Harass 06:02, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Like many of the evangelical persuasion, Mr. Turek writes an *awful* lot about the evils of the "leftist sex boogeyman" (which happens to be mostly anti-homosexual screeds) but then hems and haws about Mr. "Grab Them By The Pussy", thrice married, confirmed-cheatin'-with-porn-stars, etc. Trump. I sincerely hope the "moral majority" types are enjoying sharing the coalition with "Donald Trump's biggest fans", the type of people that (for predictably racist reasons) have elevated a formerly relatively obscure sexual fetish that is all about a specific form of "consensual cheatin'" (cuckolding) into mainstream political insult; the type of people that have a habit about concocting elaborate conspiracy theories about left-wing pedophile ring on message forums that simultaneously are notorious for hosting child porn; the type of people where the top rated Trumpy host on the top Trumpy cable news network is known for actually defending someone who had a history of "lovin' the jailbait", in an interview with one of the few people actually known to *be* a cuckold. Moral majority uh huh. I don't think there's a need to respond to this sort of shit. For the last decade or so, the fastest growing religion in America has been "none". It is a self-correcting problem, in a way. Soundwave106 (talk) 13:10, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
I dont think there is really any value in doing so. Teerthaloke101 (talk) 06:35, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Do not ever expect republican hypocrisy to deter their voters in the slightest. It isn't a self-correcting problem at all. They're all like nobs, every single one of them.ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:38, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Is a day after my original post, gave myself a chance to cool my head. Contacted the local counter-protestor group and let them know about him, but otherwise the idea that "controversy is what this kind of charlatan wants" has led me to conclude that a direct confrontation would likely be unproductive. Good play? Menoshe (talk) 21:15, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Eh, maybe. No-platforming works, but creationism isn't exactly an existential threat that warrants that level of action, either. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:23, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps joining up with likeminded people and treating Turek’s pretentious posturing as a serious thinker with the amount of seriousness it merits (i.e. none) and maybe attending his shenanigans (if you can bear them) with the same mindset as you would watching Battlefield EarthWikipedia (interchangeably laugh and cringe over how bad and moronic it all is; yup, did that for Battlefield Earth when I was a student). While I deplore the likes of Turek, the biggest problem with them is in the pseudoacademical parallel “educations” system he and his likeminded hucksters have created and the echo chamber it fosters. ScepticWombat (talk) 08:43, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

tRump is the prime example of cognitive dissonance[edit]

Yes this is a rant

  • Claims that he supports military but rolls back safety regulations.
  • Claims that he supports families yet tears them apart because they are illegal immigrants.
  • Claims that he is for America yet gives classified information to Russians that could endanger national security.
  • Says that he is Christian but spews hate speech which contradicts everything Jesus taught. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:06, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
I'd agree, but cognitive dissonance requires having cognition, and that feels like too high a bar for Donald to pass. Minish (talk) 07:43, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
1. why does the military need safety? 2. illegal immigrants arent people in Trump logic, know this and it makes more sense. 3. the russians are not some going to gain major tactical advantage from snippets of intel they likely already knew. 4. christianty seems hateful and violent to me so idk why this seems odd to you. EK (talk) 09:22, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
There is no longer a point to rant about how stupid Trump is because, he will ALWAYS find a way to do something stupider.RipCityLiberal (talk) 17:11, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm more morbidly fascinated and horrified at the people that continue supporting him. They'll make any justification, spin the hell of what's going on, bring up red herrings, tell Democrats that upholding democracy will just get him re-elected (i.e. look at what you've done, you drove the moderates away) or deflect to Democrats or whatever. People bring up supporters taking a bullet for Trump but I like the more over-the-top comparison of nuking California. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 14:37, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
He crossed the rubicon for me when he abandoned the Kurds. All the other stuff ranged from horrible but not in itself a dealbreaker (reducing the strength of the EPA) to utter nonstories (if your country produces refugees, it IS a shithole), but as someone who has longed to see some sort of protection for the Kurds, whether that be actual recognition as a culture/people by Turkey (and Turkey moving to the Multi-kulti society that they impose on the rest of Europe) or having their own state, letting them get slaughtered by the Turks is anathema to me. I thoroughly disliked Obama too, but at least he rescued the Yazidis. It's a shame the bureaucracy wouldn't let him bring them all to the states, short version is that letting in half a million Yazidis that were literally about to have their entire ethnicity purged from the planet would amount to discrimination against Muslims, somehow, but at least our military got to do something they could actually be proud of. CoryUsar (talk) 15:07, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Willful vs Unwillful Malice[edit]

I keep seeing people toss around this idea that the people on the Right, who so obviously espouse ideas that are wrong/hateful/bigoted/whatever must be doing so with the knowledge that they ARE being malicious or dishonest. While I agree there are many people who are willingly malicious, I reject the idea that the majority, or even a significant minority, are in this camp. I think most people (who espouse these ideas) are just so ignorant that they genuinely think that what they're saying is correct and founded in good faith.

Just as an example that people can explore, I want you to look through the comment section of a typical political article on my home state of NJ's premiere news website:


Despite being a fairly Left-leaning publication, the comments on NJ.com are overwhelmingly conservative and vehemently anti-Left (please feel free to look at other articles, even non-political ones). They're like a mouthpiece for this strange Trump wing of the Republican party and it's always struck me as odd and off-putting. The theory being that these are mostly retired Boomers with nothing else to do besides reload NJ.com (because it's easy to type into IE and seems like the """official""" news of our state) and spout their ridiculous ideas.

Looking at these comments, and realizing how many people out there are really like this, and REALLY vote and influence our discourse, I can't see them being willingly malicious. They're too numerous, too indoctrinated, too stubborn, and too run-of-the-mill. They really think that what they're spouting is correct and that they're fighting the good fight for our country. TheUnderOver (talk) 15:26, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Trashy comment sections can hardly be considered the general opinion (compare sentiments on a comment section with a national survey). I don't think most people agree with policies that will make life difficult for some for malicious reasons. Of course some people do. I think they're more likely to be found in comment sections. Comment sections to the flames! ShabiDOO 16:49, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Political tribalism and racism are great motivators.RipCityLiberal (talk) 17:13, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Indeed. What RipCityLiberal said. ShabiDOO 19:03, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Oxy's Permaban[edit]

Eh, why? Tinribmancer (talk) 22:14, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

It's a joke block, you feckin' dope. Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 22:16, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
π×0 seconds does equate to permaban. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 22:56, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
This is true, LGM has done this twice for my grammar, which was fair.RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:36, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
I've been permabanned? This is news to me. Oxyaena Harass 07:58, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
That's right, banned from high prices, come on down to ikanreed's discount goods of questionable quality. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:29, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Do you sell beer? Oxyaena Harass 20:38, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
He's offering bargains and low prices and you want beer. Jaysus, ask for a decent whiskey. Let's see if he can sort you out with a bottle of Gelston's 25 Year Old Single Malt Irish Whiskey. Cardinal Chang (talk) 20:58, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
That isn't of nearly questionable enough quality for my amazing deals. I have some things I suspect probably fermented at some point, though. Come on down! ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:18, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Why is there no page about www.urbandictionary.com?[edit]

Why no page on urban dictionary? It's perfect RationalWiki Material!

-Anti-SJW/"edgy" circlejerk -Full of Anti-LGBTQ Bigotry, lots of transphobia -Cranks -Hate Speech -You only have to glance for a short period of time at there page about us to see they are pissed at us. — Unsigned, by: M00NL0RD36 / talk / contribs

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. Cosmikdebris (talk) 00:24, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Urban Dictionary has actually been somewhat useful in documenting the alt-right on the alt-right glossary page. It might be worthy of a page itself, but it would be difficult to ascribe an ideology to the site since popularity is based on easily-manipulated anonymous up- and down-votes. Bongolian (talk) 04:52, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Anonymous, easily manipulated up-down votes is a system to maximize crankery and conservativism, even among demographics not prone to them. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:21, 18 October 2019 (UTC)


what do we make of this John? and what do we make of this assertion of aliens? Gzstg (talk) 00:09, 19 October 2019 (UTC)Gzstg

This story links to a Washington Examiner story (low quality paper) written by a certain "Tom Rogan", which links as evidence to a document on a "The Black Vault" website. "The Black Vault" focuses on UFOs (and selling books about UFO conspiracies at Amazon) and so-called top secret FOIAed files but has lots of other woo to supplement. Site has been around for a while (since 2002 at least!). Site owner John Greenewald has also produced a few shows of UFO Hunters and a few other woo-sploitation entertainment pieces. On his other business venture, he will also sell you cheap earbuds, perfect for listening to those woo-sploitation podcasts. The Washington Examiner story in question incidentally links to what looks to me what is an NDA for a technology center for the army. I guess a lot of woosters have never worked in tech. It doesn't mean what To The Stars is offering is legit per se (they do apparently have a "science" division but I wouldn't bet on anything coming from this). (talk) 01:37, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
So the guy who wrote this piece is a faker then? I don't think its real myself but the guy in the tweet John Schindler is supposedly a retired CIA agent or something similar anyway. nothing will come of this most likely right?Gzstg (talk) 02:02, 19 October 2019 (UTC)Gzstg
The basic gist is the document the Washington Examiner is babbling about not about aliens. Per the To The Stars Academy press release, the focus of the venture is on new material development (which fits with there being an NDA for that). The fact that this NDA *is* directed at a heavily woo-peddling firm for seemingly a legitimate scientific purpose is very weird to me, but either this organization is bipolar and their "academy of arts and sciences" thingy of theirs is legit, or the Army makes worse venture capital decisions than, say, the Softbank Vision fund, and has thrown a nugget of support into a bunch of bullshit artists whose headquarters address is a UPS Store. You make the bet there. *shrug* Soundwave106 (talk) 23:08, 19 October 2019 (UTC)