RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive335

This is an archive page, last updated 27 December 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>, <327>, <328>, <329>, <330>, <331>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, <340>, <341>, <342>, <343>, <344>, <345>, <346>, <347>, <348>, <349>, <350>, <351>, <352>, <353>, <354>, <355>, <356>, <357>, <358>, <359>, <360>, <361>, <362>, <363>, <364>, <365>, <366>, <367>, <368>, <369>, <370>, <371>, <372>, <373>, <374>, <375>, <376>, <377>, <378>, <379>, <380>, <381>, <382>, <383>, <384>, <385>, <386>, <387>, <388>, <389>, <390>, <391>, <392>, <393>, <394>, <395>, <396>, <397>, <398>, <399>, <400>, <401>, <402>, <403>, <404>, <405>, <406>, <407>, <408>, <409>, <410>, <411>, <412>, <413>, <414>, <415>, <416>, <417>, <418>, <419>, <420>, <421>, <422>, <423>, <424>, <425>, <426>, <427>, <428>, <429>, <430>, <431>, <432>, <433>, <434>, <435>, <436>, <437>, <438>, <439>, <440>, <441>, <442>, <443>, <444>, <445>, <446>, <447>, <448>, <449>, <450>, <451>, <452>, <453>, <454>, <455>, <456>, <457>, <458>, <459>, <460>, <461>, <462>, <463>, <464>, <465>, <466>, <467>, <468>

, (new)(back)

Off topic

My grandpa passed today. My family moved away when I was young, so I haven't had a whole lot of time with my grandparents. I got to see my grandpa over Thanksgiving, and he was still the warmest, smartest, funniest guy, didn't miss a step in conversation. He didn't care about or point out that I've grown my hair past my shoulders, like most of my family does. He told me jokes instead.

I have already missed him for a long time, and I will miss him for a long time from now. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:01, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

There's nothing "off topic" about this at all. I'm sending you my love. Spud (talk)

Sending my condolences.— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 13:51, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Sounds like a fella who knew what really mattered. My condolences. Semipenultimate (talk) 16:20, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, it sounds like he was a good man. I wish you the best in this time of loss. 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄^{Ask about our holiday specials!} 16:27, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that. My sympathies.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 17:05, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Likewise, I hope you and your family are okay. — Oxyaena ^Harass 18:41, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for your loss. If you need to talk, drop me a line. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 19:50, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

My condolences for your loss. Bongolian (talk) 22:02, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you all for the condolences and well wishes and love. I will do what I can to maintain the attitudes that my grandfathers graced this world with. The world is worse for the loss. And yes, the family is ok. The text I got started "Papa passed away this morning... Everyone is ok. Just letting you know." I think it was so I wouldn't talk with him like I did with my mom when her dad passed. Phone calls and other texts confirmed, everyone is ok. I am the blackest sheep in the family, and I am ok too. Thank you all, again, I really appreciate it. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 00:21, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Please take care. Remember all the great times you had with him, and try your best to cope. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 23:53, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Good advice. I appreciate it. This one can be laid to rest. The kind words were actually really helpful. I'm not totally comfortable with this being the first topic, but thank you for not wiping it. The service was packed, the man made an impact on a personal level with so many people, true to form, I guess. Glad it lasted, love you guys. It's ok to let this one go.(being said,) my grandparents did have to stay in a hotel for about 10 months before the independent living facility they invested in met ADA code. There were around 10 people who were staff at the hotel they stayed at that came to the service. That's how great my Nana and Papa are. Nana's not on her own, but when I got to the town and she asked me how I was and I said "I'm ok, how are you?" she didn't hesitate to say "I'm sad" and hugged me and we cried. Just really good people, always excited to talk with other really good people.Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:12, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Armenian genocide resolution passes in Senate

It's about time. Victory!Summa Atheologica (talk) 20:43, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Yep, one century is enough for the US to acknowledge a genocide halfway around the globe. Probably about 1000 years still to go before we formally recognize the native american genocides. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 20:55, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Conveniently, there will likely be no USA in a millenium.Summa Atheologica (talk) 21:07, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Learning that the US hadn't previously acknowledged the genocide makes me a sad boy. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 22:09, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I know. :(— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 22:11, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

It might take a leftist news outlet calling themselves "The Manifest Destiny" and shamelessly shitting on centrist policy for cash for a few years, but I could see it. TYT has emojis now, and they are just the anchors' heads, the fuck is going on? Being said, Dave Rubin is not a liberal, I am a leftist progressive liberal, Jimmy Dore seems like he has an uppers problem, let's just head all that off, but TYT is punditry, not news. How did I check back in on TYT and learn nothing more than they are doing emojis now? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 00:44, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

In fairness, only 30 or so countries actually recognized the genocide. That's one of the perks of being a critical ally of the US against the Russians by virtue of controlling the waterway into the Black Sea. Other perks include fighting wars on your behalf against your neighbors while you do little to no fighting or spending yourself and giving you the privilege of loudly criticizing them (Iraq, Syria), forcing other allies to take in your extra workers so they can send remittances back to your own country (gastarbeiter), letting you hold on to the big boy toys until the Russians let the Cubans also play with them (Cuban/Turkey missile crisis), and forcing other allies to let you into their social club in spite of having very little in common with them and a relatively backwards economy (EU). Oh, and commit further genocides (Kurds). CoryUsar (talk) 07:58, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

turkey are not in the eu and are not even close to being so AMassiveGay (talk) 12:40, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

and no ones been forced to take in any Turkish workers either AMassiveGay (talk) 12:59, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

and us involvement in Iraq and Syria has fuck all to with turkey, and selling out the kurds is entirely because trump is a pussy. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:03, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

turkey are in the Eurovision song contest though, so theres that. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:39, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Now we wait until Trump vetoes this.Summa Atheologica (talk) 14:33, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

@AMassiveGay Gastarbeiter from the big wiki, "Following World War II there were severe labour shortages in continental northern Europe, and high unemployment in southern European countries and in Turkey. The guest worker programmes were largely created because of the labour imbalance and as a result of political pressure from the United States." As for the EU, it's Turkey's membership in NATO that is giving it a reason to even be allowed to apply for EU membership. It's slow, of course, and keeps getting hiccups, but Turkey has been blackmailing the rest of the EU for other stuff as well with the refugees as the threat. And Iraq and Syrian wars? Seriously? While Iraq was mostly about whoring ourselves out for the Saudis, the war was in a small way to be in Turkey's benefit even though they didn't have to open up air space or commit troops and could freely criticize the US. The war backfired, obviously, and ended up in the worst US-made foreign disaster since the Iranian revolution. But Syria was primarily about Turkey, Erdogan basically dragged us in. CoryUsar (talk) 18:21, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

yeh that's all pretty weak on all accounts.

severe labour shortages is not turkey forcing anyone, us pressure is not turkey forcing anyone.

again, turkey is nowhere near entry to the eu, and with Erdogan in charge absolutely no chance of getting. you know that every eu country has to agree to entry don't you?

the Syria stuff sounds like pure fantasy. any sources for that because that's the first ive heard of any of this. Syria was primarily about turkey? give it a rest. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:00, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

About that portal icon.....

I want someone to convert this color to #ff7f50 and make it an .svg file. — Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 21:46, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm on it.--NavigatorBR(Talk) - 23:59, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@Jeh2ow Okay, here you go. File:Icon Tech Portal.svg. I already placed it in Category:Portal icons.--NavigatorBR(Talk) - 00:27, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I owe you something...— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 00:28, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Wasn't hard, lot of simple shapes.--NavigatorBR(Talk) - 00:47, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Make the subtitle: "Here to destroy you" KGlife (talk) 02:32, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Despair

I don't know what will happen next.
I don't know what will happen tomorrow.
I don't want to know what will happen next month.
I'd rather die than know what happens in the years that follow.
I cannot believe a country I loved, sincerely loved, would vote to hurt me. To hurt people like me. How could people be so cruel? Minish (talk) 23:10, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

What poem is this?— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 23:11, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

It's called "the tories just won the 2019 snap election because the majority of brits are bad people". ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 23:16, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Shit, how much votes did they get? Tinribmancer (talk) 23:17, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

exit polls suggest a significant tory majority and the worst labour result since 1935 or something. EK (talk) 23:22, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

So, is this it? Tinribmancer (talk) 23:26, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

oh thanks for this. ive been avoiding results because I wanted to sleep today and didn't want to angry up the blood. its still early but if it holds true, its not like we didn't see it coming. I don't get to say it often and I don't get much pleasure from it, but I told you so. repeatedly. to anyone who would listen. despair has been my default setting for 3 years. this is not just another election. this is the end of the uk AMassiveGay (talk) 23:41, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Proves to me that you Brits are as good at voting to ruin your own country as we Americans are. 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄^{Ask about our holiday specials!} 00:00, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

So true.— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 00:27, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

We learned it from you dad, we learned it from you. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 01:29, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

How is conservatism so appealing? It's thoroughly a piece of shit and failed society way too many times. It's not like their goddamn lies are hard to figure out? --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 02:04, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Never underestimate the power of spite. I grew up in a very conservative small town, and the general attitude among the adults in that environment is, "Life isn't fair. Suck it up." There's no desire to improve things. Life sucked for them, so it has to suck for everyone, and if you want to change things for the better, you're living wrong. Also, the entire UK media was relentless in smearing very strongly implying that Jeremy Corbyn is an anti-semite (naturally, despite Boris's proven racism). Goes to show, unfortunately, that despite all the buzz about social media, billionaire-owned TV and newspapers are not dead, but still the PM-maker in terms of public influence. Colossal Squid (talk) 02:42, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

are we still doing the whole 'poor Jeremy's been so hard done by the evil press' thing? AMassiveGay (talk) 13:07, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

nothing to do with the fact that after 3 years of paralysis, one side offered a clear, concrete end to it and the other side didn't even want to talk about it? AMassiveGay (talk) 13:09, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

You're right. We were doomed to lose this election. It was either campaign for only Leave ('Lexit') and lose our remain-voting seats to the Tories in a Lib/Lab split, or campaign for only Remain and lose our leave-voting seats to the Tories in a Lab/BXP split. We tried to mitigate it by being neutral and backing a Second Referendum, but it turned off Leave voters anyway who thought we were undermining the 2016 referendum (and perhaps we were). The only thing we gained from our neutral stance was barely holding on to some of the seats we had. We only gained one new seat: Remain-voting Putney. I fear for the future of my Labour Party and my country, and worry everyone will lose the true narrative beneath to those with ulterior motives on the left and right of Labour.

This election was all about Brexit. The Tories got their message through while we seemed uncertain - how much of that is up to the press and how much is up to our policies themselves will never be known for certain. Minish (talk) 20:21, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Despair is never a wise choice. My daughter was a big HRC fan and was devastated when Trump won in 2016. I tell you now what I told her then, presuming you are not much older than she was. "I have been disappointed by a number of elections. You will likely participate in more than a dozen elections in the next fifty years. It is probable that you will never be this unhappy again." I hope for the best for you all and for GB. Don't despair. Ariel31459 (talk) 03:40, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

It's a very unexpected result, and certainly not the one one I would have liked to see. But it's the one we have. It will be interesting to see what Boris does with the surprising about of political power the electorate has handed him. Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 10:30, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

i don't know why its very unexpected, labour were getting hammered in the polls for quite some time AMassiveGay (talk) 12:50, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

It isn't, most papers seemed to frame the choice as between two equally repugnant dumpster fires, but most gave an edge to the Tories. I think federalism and the strong separation of powers baked into the US Constitution has mitigated some of the awfulness of Donald Trump. We'll see what happens with the UK (though there might be a bit of "federalism" of its own as a Scottish independence breakaway is more likely than ever.) Soundwave106 (talk) 13:49, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the Con victory was by no means unexpected. What was unexpected was the scale. That was what I meant about an very unexpected result.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 17:09, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

The election was one of the worst. Jo Swinson just resigned as leader of the Lib Dems, while Corbyn said that he will step down as Labour leader, and as a result, leader of the Opposition. So, in conclusion, this election sucked ass.— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 20:45, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps this sounds funny, but we were worse off before now. During the general election, our vote share finally recovered from Feb-May 2019, something the Con vote share had already done. 34% would have been unthinkable in October, honestly. While the postmortem will reveal where we failed, I don't doubt the effort and dedication of canvassers inside and outside of Momentum. (I personally went to see Jeremy at a youth rally, a moment I'll never forget)

It hurts, but it's time for Jeremy to go. He was who made me join the party, and I will always respect the resurgence in the left he stood for, (not caused, it was there waiting for someone to grab it like he did) and mourn his failures - for one, his obvious failure to deal with anti-semitism. I've heard conflicting reports from canvasser friends about how much it was an issue, (2/100 mentions per doorknock to 90/100) but he became an unfortunate growing pain. The time's come for another leader, and I wait for his 'period of reflection' to end.

R.I.P: Jeremy Corbyn. I hope he can be content in the backbenches, and return to fighting for the causes he believes in without the burden of being Leader. Minish (talk) 21:28, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

It's very hard to say what would have happened re the brexit policy of Corbyn (what was it...did anyone ever figure it out) but I'd guess that if the party were unambiguous about "remain" and holding a referendum that they would have performed better. I don't think you get anywhere with a wishywashy approach when every other party is taking a hard line. In any case, what I am utterly certain of, is Corbyns number one fuck-up. Not participating with the Lib-Dems and the Greens in a strategic voting alliance. The politics of "either my party gets a majority or our enemy wins...nothing in between" just doesn't work in the long-term interests of a party. Sharing power with several parties, as hard as that would have been...would have saved the UK, saved his leadership, saved the possibility of another referendum and most importantly kept that racist, homophobic, dirty disgraceful fuck-up out of a comfortable bed in downing street (a comfortable majority). But Corbyn wanted it all. He (and Labour) put the petty short term interests over those of their party's long term ones and the future of their own bloody country. When you don't make compromises and find some consensus, shitty loud-mouth fuck-ups get into office instead. I won't miss a leader, even one like Corbyn, who plays that game. I don't feel sorry for him in the slightest. ShabiDOO 22:06, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

its galling that people believed 'the hype' about Corbyn. everyone I talked to would not listen to any criticism of Corbyn at all, it was 'oh its just the papers hate him', 'polls are all wrong', or the inane 'hes actually a nice guy'. I couldn't even finish the points I was trying to make half the time.

'petty short term interests over those of their party's long term ones' - that's funny, because when he got the job as lab leader he said he wanted 'a new sort of politics'. everything from the referendum to now, he did nothing but play the same old party politics, except badly.

I hear hes proud of their manifesto though. nothing but fantasy in it, but hes proud of it.

I am literally an ignorant dumbfuck, how could people not see this coming when I apparently could? AMassiveGay (talk) 22:24, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure why people think the Lib Dems and Labour are on the same side when they've historically been on the side of the Tories. Cameron's government was propped up by Nick Clegg and Jo Swinson has consistently voted in lock-step with Tory austerity measures. Heck, Swinson has made it clear she hates Corbyn's guts, and sabotaged any potential second referendum alliance before the election was called. Colossal Squid (talk) 01:19, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

'historically been on the side of the tories' that's false right there. they've historically been not quite tory not quite labour. they were actually formed from a breakway section of the labour party, and probably still ideologically closer to labour. the fact that clegg plumped for the tories in the coalition is more down to no one really liking gordon brown and had effectively lost the election, and being offered a referendum on proportional representation.

as for jo swinson hating Corbyn, that's electioneering. its not like Corbyn made it easy to support him if you werent a natural labour voter. what do you think would have happened during a hung parliament? who do think they would have gone into government with if they were kingmaker? they campaigned on an anti Brexit ticket, do you really think they would have gone for the tories? the one party committed to Brexit? after last time?

if the goal was to get the tories out, then yes, lib and lab were very much on the same side AMassiveGay (talk) 12:41, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

The statement: "they were actually formed from a breakway section of the labour party" is not really correct. The "liberal" part of the party goes back to the the 1850's and is much older than the Labor party which was only formed in 1900.

I guess you are thinking of the SDP which split from the Labor party in 1984 and merged with the Liberals in 1988 to form the Lib Dems.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 08:47, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Ladies and Gentleman....

Feast your eyes on THIS! Template:Technav Also, I need serious help in making the technology page, so I need a group effort from all of you at RW. Thank You. — Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 00:45, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I take it you're now talking about an article called "Technology", Since, as I've pointed out, we don't have any Wikipedia-style portals here. Spud (talk)

I know. But this isn't designed to be like a Wikipedia portal. Also, I will love it if you'd help me with the page.— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 12:27, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

@Jeh2ow So again, do you just mean a regular article called "Technology"? Spud (talk)

Yes. I want a technology article on RW.— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 15:16, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Assuming, of course, that anything technology related meets the mission statements. There are certainly plenty of possibilities.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 17:12, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

@bob m Of course technology fits the mission statements. There are also crazy conspiracies involving tech, and the big tech companies pretty much control a global monopoly on tech we use.— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 17:19, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Not big on the icon. What about something like this (mockup, not final version)? Sρɾıɡɡınɑ (τɑlk) (conτɾıbs) @ 18:44, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I could use that. Make it #ff4500.— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 18:48, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Next time you feel sad, just watch this "Crazy Christian Cringe Compilation". Bound to cheer you up

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDLyza73rXY

I swear that in the first clip, that church service seemed more like a rave than anything else. You will get a kick out of this. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 03:07, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I'll level with you. Conceptually, "cringe compilations" are the very avatar of what I like like least about the internet. Spite, drama, facile videos devoid of context, cherrypicking, hatewatching, stereotyping, and so much more. I get that I'm not a discourse elevator who has any right to be contemptuous of these things, but I think as strong as my distaste for fundamentalism and its pernicious influence on politics, culture, and peoples' real lives is, there's something worse about engaging in the 2 minutes' hate that is our modern way of exposing ourselves to "the other side".

Sorry for shitting on what was just a fun side thing for you. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 05:20, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the bullshit of Youtube in general. Having said that, fundamentalist Christianity (like most religions in this arc) is a fucking cult that hasn't even read their own founding text. It is clear that the spirit of Matthew 6:5 is being violated in this video (although they could point to Matthew 10:27, which does nothing more than show what a fucking contradictory mess the Bible can be.) Soundwave106 (talk) 13:38, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I think I've already shared my broad dislike of youtube. This is just a particular instance that really grates on me. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 21:55, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

UK elections

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/dec/13/bombastic-boris-johnson-wins-huge-majority-on-promise-to-get-brexit-done

Did anyone here vote for him? Melody (talk) 08:47, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I have always utterly despised first past the post Westminster voting systems. It is always tyrrany of the minority. ShabiDOO 10:53, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

What is it with people and voting for assholes? Seriously, the more you behave like a twat, the more popular you are. And this isn't just the UK... Tinribmancer (talk) 11:01, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I'll take these first two answers as "We did not." Melody (talk) 12:11, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I live in America so no. Also, the way I understand it the citizens don't vote for the PM, the MPs do. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 12:24, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

a general election is 650 byelections at once. you could only vote for boris if you were in his constituency AMassiveGay (talk) 12:47, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

MPs don't actually 'vote' either, its just a tally of which party has the most seats, and the party leader gets the nod AMassiveGay (talk) 13:28, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

@AMassiveGay Don't the MPs in each party vote for their party leader? Apologies for the poorly worded reply before, I was in a hurry. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 14:36, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

@GrammarCommieparty leader selection doesn't happen during a general election. (only just seen this replyAMassiveGay (talk) 20:45, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not British. Tinribmancer (talk) 15:45, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Each party decides themselves how their leader is chosen in a Westminster system. The conservatives had the sitting MPs reduce the candidates to two I think (or was it four?). And then all party memebers voted by mail ballot etc. Fuck-face-asshole-Johnson won by the spectacular strategy of keeping his mouth shut for once and promising everyone their impossible dream. Labour had a strange system sort of like an electoral college but the last one was, you need a minimum number of MPs to support you to be properly nominated and then party members all vote. With lib dems you need a minimum number of MPs to support your candidacy, 200 party members to endorse you and then all party members vote for the leader (on a runoff system). In Canada they tend to waffle between this kind of vote vs. old style delegate systems where MPs and party high-ranks have more weight in their votes (sort of like in the US). One thing Americans find surprising is how the Prime Minister changes without a national vote. In reality, Westminster Systems are basically the American house of representatives with the leader being prime minister. If this were the case in America Pelosi would be president. There are senates/house of lords but they are very very much subordinant to the house and becoming obsolete (its a matter of years until it's gone). If a prime minister retires then the party chooses a new leader however they want and they become Prime Minister. I'm pretty sure the same thing happens when the US House of Rep speaker resigns and representatives pick a new speaker. That person would, in West min systems become the next Prime Minister. It all sounds as though the Prime Minister isn't as strong as the US president being just one elected member in parliament but in reality if there is a majority in parliament...they can do almost whatever they want as long as they don't piss off party members too much. American presidents have openly said in the past how jealous they were of Pierre Trudeau or Thatcher. ShabiDOO 22:59, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Is there an "official" explanation for why Australia is the example of a points based immigration system?

If you're able to answer this question, I assume you already know that Canada is generally considered the first country to implement a points based immigration system, something they still have. Australia followed now that long after. New Zealand was a fair amount later although will soon have had such a system for 30 years so can't exactly be considered new to such a system any more. Each countries system has it's differences and they're not static anyway. Anyway to the question: I've seen it suggested before e.g. [1] (well long before that blog post) that the reason why Australia is often given as the (only) example when referring to such a system by people in the UK and I guess also the US is as a form of dog whistling/coded language, invoking the Wikipedia:White Australia policy without actually saying it. So I'm wondering, have those who always refer to an Australian style points ever explained why they always choose Australia as the example? Nil Einne (talk) 14:04, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything to learn from australia's system considering they're trying to find a legal way to deport austrialian aboriginal peoples. Probably best to just think of it as a hell hole and move on. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 14:17, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't know why anyone would look to Australia's constantly changing immigration system and their cruel and horrendous refugee policy. While Canada's system is by no means perfect, I wouldn't hesitate to call it a model worth referring to. Australian politics is as nasty and dirty as the US and the UK with even more outright racism and climate change denial. It's a country where politics and policy should never be emulated. ShabiDOO 15:16, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I heard that France and Israel also have crappy policies involving immigration.— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 15:18, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

in the uk the Australian points system is touted by pricks pushing anti immigrant sentiment. its particularly bullshit because we already have something similar (and shitty). good luck getting your foreign born spouse to come live with you because they aint getting in. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:36, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

For clarity, I'm not so much interested in comparisons between the Australian system and others, nor the problems with the Australian system, but in the reasons those who use it as the exclusive example give for choosing it. If they are saying it's because the Canadian system is too soft or the Australian system gets the balance right on a tough but fair system, that's the sort of thing I'm interested in.

I did also occur to me that the perception of Australia as the most racist of countries with such a system may also be an unofficial reason, although until I admit until I read the aboveAustralia's practices of dealing with asylum seekers arriving by boat was not something that particularly occurred to me. Still we could come up with lots of likely reasons why they like to use it as an example.

I'm only really interested in knowing whether they've actually given some reason for doing so. I'm especially wondering since it seems even Johnson and the Conservatives are using it now. When it was mostly UKIP etc, well they're the sort of people who I'd expect will be more willing to wink-wink nudge-nudge and and not worry about a reason for they they chose Australia. But I would have thought the Conservatives would be different. Unless they're just saying 'Well it's because it's the example that everyone knows....' and ignore the follow-up 'Why does everyone know that example? Because UKIP used it. Why did UKIP use it? .....'

If there have been any leaks or whatever where UKIP people or whoever have been caught openly admitting they chose Australia for racist reasons, that would be interesting to hear about as well.

Nil Einne (talk) 10:03, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

they are using it because everyone knows it. they are using to say immigration is a problem and this the solution. they are using it because it in effect it wouldn't actually make much difference to the systems already in place, but still makes them look 'tough on immigration'

in the uk, the Australian system is well known and has been well known for a long time. Australia has always been seen as a land of milk and honey for a lot of people, and australia has always encouraged immgration from the uk, since the ten pound poms AMassiveGay (talk) 13:08, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

also in the uk, its related to the eu and to Brexit. its not about 'whites only' its about poles, Romanians, Bulgarians, etc as being the 'threat' AMassiveGay (talk) 13:21, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Rand Paul 2020

Has he already announced it? Tinribmancer (talk) 17:23, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

hes republican isn't he? so doubtful.AMassiveGay (talk) 17:42, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, a RINO according to our article. Tinribmancer (talk) 18:47, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

rino means actually fuck all though doesn't it. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:03, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Pretty much. — Oxyaena ^Harass 19:16, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

UK?

what will the united kingdom of great Britain and northern Ireland be called when the scots leave, and quite possibly ni (hopefully free of bloodshed) soon after? AMassiveGay (talk) 22:40, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

United Kingdom of England and Wales, maybe? 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄^{Ask about our holiday specials!} 23:13, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Wales and Wales the Lesser. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 23:51, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Well...if Scotland and NIreland left it would be called "The Kingdom of Jolly Ole England and the Principality of Wales and the City of London". Would likely just be called England by most people. ShabiDOO 00:50, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if they would choose that entitlement. Tinribmancer (talk) 10:02, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm Welsh, and in my experience a lot of English people already call the whole thing "England". But I left over twenty years ago and maybe people are more careful with their language now.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 08:53, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Johnson's new government

I asked this before when he became prime minister for the first time. Is his new government going to last longer than the previous one (someone predicted then that he would last until the end of the year, and that person was right) or is this going to be another shitshow? Tinribmancer (talk) 00:01, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but I don’t think there legally has to be another election for five years, so I’m pretty sure the Tories will be in power for at least that long. 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄^{Ask about our holiday specials!} 00:04, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

It is always possible in-fighting will resume and Johnson will kicked out and replace with someone else. Or that the Conservative Party will completely collapse and there won't even be a majority anymore. However with such a large majority and with Johnson being seen, fairly or not, as the person who managed to lead them to that success the current consensus seems to be that this is unlikely. Even if Johnson doesn't really deliver what he promises on Brexit from what I've seen most seem to think there won't be enough of a revolt to cost him his place. Note in terms of the government, while I'm not that familiar with the norms of the UK I assume cabinet reshuffles aren't uncommon and ministers could leave of be kicked out for a variety of reasons so the government he forms now is probably not going to be the same as the one in 5 years. Nil Einne (talk) 09:51, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

My father told me yesterday that he said he wants to become a centrist for the people or something like that. A centrist? Him? Tinribmancer (talk) 10:01, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

they've got a massive majority, why wouldn't thye last more than a year? AMassiveGay (talk) 12:18, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

and you clearly don't know who Johnson is. this is someone who did no want Brexit, thought leave would lose, and only threw his hat into the ring to boost is career. this is not an ideologue but a populist who in the past has been on the more liberal side of the conservative party. he has no original thoughts of his own, and is simply a two faced cunt. all this nonsense about him being the british trump is similarly bullshit. he is not, and prime minister is not even equivalent to president.

many in his cabinet are are ideologues who think that thatcher was wet. its they who should be fearedAMassiveGay (talk) 12:56, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

But he is good at football. John66 (talk) 23:53, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Johnson made has case and - through the vagaries of the UK electoral system - got a massive majority. As a result his government is more stable than many others in Europe. Everything is possible in politics but I would be amazed if this government didn't last the full five years.

Interestingly, given the fixed terms parliament act, Christmas elections could become the norm in the UK.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 08:51, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

The FTPA does not prevent early elections (see 2017 and now).

Might have been interesting if Lord Buckethead and Count Binface had stood in the relevant constituencies and replaced Messrs Johnson and Corbyn - but whether they could enter Parliament is another matter. Anna Livia (talk) 19:34, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

No it most certainly doesn't prevent early elections as recent events have clearly demonstrated. It just makes them a lot more difficult to bring off as ( nearly) everyone has to agree to it. It's difficult to imagine the circumstances where an early election would be in the interest of both the Conservative and the Labour party over the next five years. On the other hand, all the events of the last few months would have been difficult to imagine as well. Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 21:16, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Labour's Future

What happens next for Labour? I doubt Corbyn will survive this disaster, so who is potentially in a position to replace him and rebuild? RoninMacbeth (talk) 14:58, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

his successor will likely become clear the next few weeks. it will be interesting to see what happens with momentum AMassiveGay (talk) 15:13, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I heard that Diane Abbott is a possibility.— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 15:15, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I might not have full picture of the race (it's impossible to really have one before it's started) but it seems to be between Rayner/Starmer/Phillips. Pidcock (a horrible person do not @ me) was supposed to be the frontrunner, but she was ousted from her seat, so the race is now very unclear. Starmer will be running exclusively against women, but Labour has never elected a woman leader, so he may win regardless. My personal preference is Rayner for various reasons. (less Remain than Starmer, less... Phillips than Phillips)

It does not appear like Abbott has any intention to stand whatsoever. Don't know where you heard that. Minish (talk) 18:58, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

The two key words is "I heard." Raymer is very good, though.— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 19:01, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

What's wrong with Phillips? Tinribmancer (talk) 20:02, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Not much, besides the fact that she's part of the "soft left". But if you ask me, the best candidate has to be Yvette Cooper. She's a lot like Corbyn, although she is more favorable of a two-state solution. She, like Corbyn, is to the UK as Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are right here in America.— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 22:59, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Jess Phillips has links to TERF organisations that segregate trans people from shelters and accused people who said trans-women are women of 'grandstanding'. She thinks TERF demands are 'completely reasonable'. Minish (talk) 00:02, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

She also harassed Diane Abbott for no reason and is about as right-wing as you can get in Labour without going into Blue Labour territory. Minish (talk) 00:08, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

My preference would be Rayner/Butler - both have strong commitments to trans rights and, goddammit, could we have a female duo at the front of the party? That's not too much to ask is it? Minish (talk) 00:13, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

They'll become centrists who will win one election by tiny margins for reasons unrelated to people actually liking them again. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 15:18, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

I feel like we learned the wrong lessons from New Labour Minish (talk) 01:02, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Emily Thornberry just announced she's running. Frankly I think a Thornberry leadership would be a dream come true for the Conservatives. Keir Starmer is also said to be considering. I like Keir, he's the ex-Director of Public Prosecutions and clearly has a sharp mind. But he aggressively pushed Labour into supporting a second referendum, which most would argue lost them the election.

Labour should elect a Leader who is both Brexit-sympathetic and from the North (if there are any Northern MPs left). Another London liberal isn't going to retake Blyth Valley or Workington--RWRW (talk) 14:55, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

'supporting a second referendum, which most would argue lost them the election' that's a dubious statement. as for needing a a candidate sympathetic to Brexit - that's arse. bvrexit wont matter for the a new labour leader. its entirely out of their hands and will be a done deal very shortly. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:20, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

My guess is within days of 31 January the Lib Dems, Greens and others will pledge to make the UK rejoin the EU. There will be elements within Labour, the Owen Smith-style MPs, who will also push for this. --RWRW (talk) 15:32, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Atheist Republic

I personally think that the website deserves it's own article. It makes rational criticisms if ALL religions, and is usually accurate when talking about random current events from a left-wing, athiestic perspective.— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 15:24, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

No-one's stopping you writing it. Avida Dollars^{her again} 22:48, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Sarah Connor, where is she?! — Oxyaena ^Harass 14:41, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

You mean Sarah Connor? She died in Terminator 3. What does that have anything to do with Atheist Republic?— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 15:14, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Here's the draft. Please make edits.— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 15:49, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

You're right, you're not the one I want. Get your mother, please. — Oxyaena ^Harass 17:16, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I may need serious help editing the page. Would you like to help me?— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 15:21, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

All right, you meanies, I'm not laughing too hard to help. Let me be a little more explicit. Jeh2ow, you have not linked to the site, that's a demerit. It's casual cool, very strong play, make the person interested search it themselves, but I'm not happy that I did. As far as your draft, you have placed an opinion of the site and offered nothing else. Are we supposed to just look at the site that is not even once cited and say "damn, that's true, Jeh2ow knows what he's talking about?" Are we supposed to integrate with the site? I don't know, but I know you like it, and maybe I'll check it out some time, maybe I'll like it and buy a hundred shirts, I don't know and I have no plan of checking it out right now. I just don't think we're on the same page about an article here, and you're going to have to put in a lot more work in your draft. I think it's very cool that atheism is finding major space to communicate and organize, for the explicit message that atheism is valid. But as for this site, concerning an article there is a minimum. I like that you like this atheist forum. I personally do not think the site deserves a page, but like I said I haven't checked it out. I've judged it on your draft and the site's front page. If you disagree, think the site is worth looking at, write a draft that deserves consideration. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:45, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Being said, here's an idea, you might do better asking that community for help starting a draft. (edit, unsigned, my bad) Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:07, 19 December 2019 (UTC) 04:50, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Croatian-Serbian Border Dispute and the micronation of Liberland

I am aware that there is a border dispute between Croatia and Serbia. I am also aware that a Libertarian politician made claim to a small island unclaimed by either recognized country. What would either Croatia or Serbia gain for not allowing people to inhabit the island claimed for the proposed country of Liberland? From how I see it, there would be no point in preventing people from going there. Is there something I am missing here? Not trying to sound stupid here. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:08, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Countries tend to be a bit jealous of sovereignty as a concept, and the idea of some adventurer setting him/herself up as a sovereign state is not welcome. Among other things there is the perception that many such "private" states are set up for essentially nefarious purposes, and that although the land in question may be in dispute between 2 nations it indisputably DOES "belong" to one of them - not to some third party. If one side acknowledges the sovereignty of the microstate then it is acknowledging that it (the major state) doesn't actually have a claim to the land, so the other side gets it by default - ain't going to happen where there is a dispute. Aloysius the Gaul 02:14, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

You can read my synopsis of Liberland here: Liberland#Liberland. Libertarian paradise is located within the flood plain on the Danube River, so there are two or three geographical reasons that make Liberland a bad idea. 1) It could be easily flooded because like most rivers, the Danube is known to flood. 2) Some boundaries are defined by the course of a river, so if the river changes course so does the boundary. I'm not sure if this is the case with Liberland. 3) It is necessary to enter Liberland through either Croatia or Serbia. If both countries decide at the same time that they don't like the idea of Liberland, they just need to implement an exorbitant tax for entry or exit into Liberland, or just a regular old economic blockade until everyone leaves. Countries like to maintain their territorial integrity. The idea of people moving freely in and out of Liberland without going through customs control would probably be regarded as a violation of territorial integrity. Bongolian (talk) 03:36, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

One of the interesting things about Liberland is that Serbia doesn't want it, but Croatia insists it is Serb - which has created the "gap". the genesis is whether the border follows the current path of the Danube, or that from man years ago. The former path was much more convoluted, and Croatia claims land that was in its side of the former path but is on Serbia's side of the current path. Liberland is on Serbia's side of hte former path, but Croatia's side of the current one - so they (Croatia) can't accept Liberland as part of Croatia without also giving up its own claims to the bits on the other side of the current Danude that is claims due to them being on its side of hte older path. All a bit silly really - de jure the actual control conforms pretty much to Serbia's position - see the dispute on wiki. Aloysius the Gaul 20:22, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

"Territorial integrity" is oppressive statist bullshit and leads to circumstances like what's going on in East Turkestan and Hong Kong. — Oxyaena ^Harass 13:46, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes....... and your point is?? Aloysius the Gaul 20:22, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Can we decide on something like a policy for pages in other languages?

So the question of machine translations has come up again. It looks like it's time to add a section giving advice about this to the RationalWiki:Languages page. I think it should say that, although it's all right to refer to the likes of Google Translate in the same way that you'd refer to a dictionary or a grammar book, pages that rely entirely or mostly on machine translations are unacceptable and will be deleted as soon as they are identified. Any objections? Also do you think that all pages in other languages should be translations of ones that already exist in English? Spud (talk) 04:34, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree. People who are translating pages should have high-level (i.e., more than basic) reading/writing proficiency in both languages. This does not apply to people who are writing from scratch. Bongolian (talk) 05:12, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I second the motion. I plan on assisting with page translations to Portuguese and maybe Spanish. Do the translations have to be identical to the original articles in English, or can there be variation? (And if so for the latter, how much?) G Man (talk) 05:39, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't think there should be any requirement that translated pages match. If one feels comfortable writing new material in the translated language, one can certainly write whatever is within missionality. Bongolian (talk) 08:07, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I think a good translation will inevitably be a bit different from the original anyway. And that's how a translation that's done by an actual thinking human being is better than an automatic one. Most of the translations I've done have been a tiny bit longer than the original because I felt the need to explain some cultural references. And if you can work in some cultural references that will mean something to speakers of the target language so much the better. If you can put in a little joke that's not in the original, don't hesitate to do that. Spud (talk) 12:16, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

How do you tell the difference between machines and less than perfect humans? EK (talk) 11:02, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm suspicious of any page that appears suddenly and fully formed without anyone working on it as a draft for a while. I first got the feeling somebody was using machine translation when two users posted one new Italian translation every week for two months. That would have been quite a superhuman feat if they'd really translated the pages themselves. Also, in the past, machine translations have tended to have lots of red links in them because everything on the page, including all the wiki links, has been copied That has included lots of red categories too because all of the categories have been translated. I also became suspicious of the Italian translation of the Knowledge page because it said the Italian word conoscenza came from the Middle English word conoscere, which was obviously bollocks and not the kind of mistake a human who could speak Italian and English should have made. But I'm not gong to notice mistakes like that in every language every time. Spud (talk) 12:04, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

One of these requires food, the other one doesn't. Tinribmancer (talk) 16:10, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

There are other ways such as running part of the English text through Google translate and see if it matches exactly, noticing a badly and oddly formatted page, or multiple link failures. Also, asking the person who created the page has usually resulted in an admission. Machine translation implies haste on the part of the page creation, which means that non-translation mistakes are often made because of the haste.

The main problem with machine translation, as I see it, is that it does not make a contribution to RationalWiki of any value. Anyone can run an entire webpage through Google translate in a few seconds. Making a skilled translation still takes some nuance and talent. Bongolian (talk) 18:43, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

It's true. I've found out beyond any doubt that pages were machine translated because I asked the users who added them if they were and they said, "Yes." And I agree 100% with everything else Bongolian just said. Spud (talk) 07:11, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I think that this is a non-controversial issue. Why don't you have a first go at editing the language page, @Spud? Bongolian (talk) 19:34, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

@Bongolian i was going to leave it for a week. But, yeah. There have been no howls of protest. So I think it's now official. No machine translations. All machine translations will be deleted as soon as they are identified. I have added this section to the RationalWiki:Languages page to state the policy and give a bit of advice. Of course, my words on that page are not set in stone. But I think a no machine translations policy damn near well is. Spud (talk) 07:03, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

The addition looks fine to me. Bongolian (talk) 07:43, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I would suggest removing the mention of Google translate. It's not very reliable and doesn't have the reliability or the intricacies of a dictionary. For example, "period" in English Google translates to "período", a woman's period. However, period can refer to a lot of things. Geological era, puncuation, a period in music theory. All of these aren't "período" in Spanish.—チーズバーガー • めん  (talk • stalk) 11:00, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

@CheeseburgerFace I have rephrased it to say, "it is, of course, OK to refer to online translation tools from time to time if you don't have a good dictionary or grammar book handy." And please do not hesitate to edit the section to offer more helpful advice. Spud (talk) 14:25, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Arabic

I suggest we add Arabic as a possible RW language. Who's with me?— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 15:18, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I say we put a bell on the cat, who's with me, fellow mice? If you can do that, please go ahead. If you can't neither can I and it's a little silly to talk about huge quantities of real work as an abstract policy. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:51, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

No, seriously. I want to add Arabic as an RW language. Does anyone else like this idea?— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 17:25, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

you've missed the point there. can you read and write in Arabic? if not its a dumb idea. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:36, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I can read and write in four different languages: English, French, Hebrew, and in this case, Arabic.— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 17:40, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

then knock yourself out. you'll likely be working on your own and its a lot work though. unless there is some policy reason why you cannot just start AMassiveGay (talk) 17:47, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Good luck finding other people who can read and write Arabic. Most people outside the Middle East and Northern Africa cannot speak the language due to Arabic being extremely difficult to learn. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:03, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Guess that makes me lucky, as I know both Arabic and Hebrew.— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 18:18, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I think of the four languages in which you are literate, Arabic is the least well understood, and consequently one of the other choices, say French, would be more accessible to our readers. Of course you are free to work in Arabic if you like. Translating Arabic content into a western language might be more useful to our current users.Ariel31459 (talk) 21:01, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I also doubt that RationalWiki is readily in the Middle East or North Africa. There is also the fact that in say Iraq there is frequent conflict that would damage internet access. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:25, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't be so presumptuous about RW access in the Arabic speaking world. Bongolian (talk) 03:14, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

@Lord Aeonian probably has something to say here. — Oxyaena ^Harass 04:47, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

@Jeh2ow You don't have to ask permission to start adding pages in another language. Absolutely any language with a written form can be a RationalWiki language. In fact, we already had an Arabic-language page about Saudi Arabia that was deleted for being a hopelessly tiny stub. If you want to add pages in Arabic, I think that's great. If you want to add pages in Hebrew, I think that's great too. And if you want to help me add more pages in French, I think that's really great. Spud (talk) 07:19, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

to make it an official language you just need to write some pages in Arabic including one on ratwiki itself and create a category for them. EK (talk) 08:14, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

It'll definitely take a lot of your time, but I think it's a worthy investment. Arabic is spoken by some 300 million people (plus +200 million L2 speakers) worldwide. Additionally, the Arab world is becoming increasingly less religious. This is especially the case for the younger generations. (Please note that the percentage of those who are unaffiliated is still considerably lower than, say, Western Europe.) It is also widely accepted that social media played a role in the Arab Spring, but the extent of that role is unknown. Anyhow, I think it's worth a shot. If all works out in our favor (assuming that internet censorship in MENA countries doesn't block this site), we will expand our reach significantly. This wiki does have a lot of good hit pieces refutations to Islamic theological claims, after all. Besides, we already have some articles in Persian, which is spoken by a lot fewer people; why not include Arabic, too? What do we have to lose? G Man (talk) 17:25, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Great! Let me get started.— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 21:04, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Here it is. My first article in a different language.— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 21:24, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I will also need help making an Arabic template, with a gif and everything.— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 00:27, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Awesome. Is English your first language? You're good at it. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:15, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

شعرون بالغباء في نشر دي: got me, but I can not proofread your article. I post stupid shit all the time. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:33, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

In the beginning.......

There was nothing and then.... the universe. At least that's what we used to say but apparently that isn't so and the case being made is that the universe has always existed. But then does that make it eternal?Machina (talk) 04:05, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

We don't know. — Oxyaena ^Harass 04:46, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Nothing is a VERY vague term here. What do you mean by nothing? ShabiDOO 05:14, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, in a sense, there is no 'nothing' due to virtual particles. Take a look at quantum woo if you want to see how this is 'applicable' to Buddhism, Machina. Bongolian (talk) 05:29, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

There are many things we do not know. Some of them we may never know. Some of them are big important things and some are not. So what? Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 08:33, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

There are known knowns, and known unknowns, and unknown knowns, and unknown unknowns. — Oxyaena ^Harass 15:06, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

there is no answer to this that will not make your head spin AMassiveGay (talk) 10:47, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

In the beginning, there was a button, and a sign: DO NOT PUSH THIS BUTTON! Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 17:12, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Someone pushed the button, and the world exploded like the planet Alderaan. After that, it combined to create a floating blue ball, where the most powerful man is Eric Cartman as president. Oh, the times we have been through.— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 18:29, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I looked at the woo page and saw something by Schrödinger about how the quantum view is like that of Hinduism or that religious text but I have heard people who study it say both yes and no so I’m not sure. Also what do you mean by head spin?Machina (talk) 20:42, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I mean it will really twist your melon, man AMassiveGay (talk) 21:53, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Simply put: science does not know yet. Research in terms of what happened before the big bang is almost all speculation and conjectures at this point. It will take a hell of a long time before scientists can determine the conditions before the big bang. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 22:58, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I am tempted and do want to know.Machina (talk) 06:00, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Transgender, Intersex People and Sport

I have been doing a bit of research into this lately. TERF conspiracy theories about trans-women athletes invading women's sport to get an easy win, seem to combine here with a lot of over-simplistic ideas about testosterone and biological sex. Would be an area ripe for a little fact-checking and rationalwiki perspective. Are there any rationalwiki endocrinologists or human biology people who'd be willing to help me draft a page in the near future?^{— Unsigned, by: Tikitime / talk / contribs}

I doubt it. Melody (talk) 13:30, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

if you want a page, write it. people here may add to it or copyedit work done but you will need to take the initiative. EK (talk) 13:34, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

That is my plan, once I complete a few of my own projects! Though I am a humanities guy first, so if there was anyone with a medical science background who could double check the occasional reference and make sure I don't make any glaring scientific errors, that would be a real boon. Get ready, it's... (talk) 16:00, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

you'd be very much mistaken if you think this kind of thing is limited terfs. there have recently been rule changes in the IAAF [2] [3] [4] [5]. its a thorny issue AMassiveGay (talk) 23:45, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

The most insightful quote is from the Guardian:

This is about natural testosterone levels. Are we going to go to a point where we are banning people who are tall from playing basketball or swimmers with long arms? Those are also natural advantages.

Seriously?—チーズバーガー • めん  (talk • stalk) 06:03, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

It's a thorny issue (yep, not just TERF hysteria) because there does tend to be a competitive advantage in some sports for biological males, and the greater awareness of intersex individuals occasionally causes problems that are legitimately difficult to iron out if we want to maintain sex-differentiated categories in athletic performance. However, I would agree that the focus on just one sex hormone (testosterone) seems foolish, there is a wide range of human types out there. Therefore the current IAAF regulations seem over simplistic. The top level runners (generally competing as females) caught in the intersex controversy seem to have running times comparable to elite female runners vs. elite male runners, after all. Soundwave106 (talk) 14:27, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Glad to see that the topic has sparked some interest. Also my characterising it as a TERF thing was misleading, as it's also a wedge issue for fascists, and other assorted dickheads, looking to kindle hatred of LGBT folks now that open gay-bashing has become less socially acceptable. Get ready, it's... (talk) 19:59, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Not just hatred. There is sometimes genuine fear of the physical stature of trans-women. The average-size man can injure an average-size women. They are certainly more aggressive. Some people are worried that the average-size trans-woman is more than an average-size cis-woman can handle. That's not hatred. It may be wrong, and it may be ignorant. But it's not hatred.Ariel31459 (talk) 00:58, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm glad we're having an honest discussion. And as I've said here in the past, these world-class athletes are all genetic phenoms lucky enough to have the time and funding to pursue world-class physical endeavors, that point is being made already so I don't have to beleaguer it. I still don't know what to make of the controversy as a whole, other than to personally care less and less about something like a full on sprint time and more about scoffing at the idea that a sport like billiards has gendered divisions. I mean, put me in a pair of track shoes and even at my physical peak there are women who will outrun me. Put me in an amateur wrestling match, and when I was in the fifth grade I got hit with a banana split so hard that I quit wrestling. I made varsity track my freshman year of high school for triple jump, I had the shortest jump in our district, but the third best at our school. That's not scholarship material. I've played baseball, soccer, basketball, football, my first time trying a pickup game of hockey in college I got one gentle hip-check and wound up with a concussion. At my physical best, there are girls/women who will outperform me in any of those sports. And as I've said before, I do I have to defer to the PROFESSIONAL athletes, to the best in/on the field. This is an argument from no authority.

It's worth considering that the public does not care about something like a marathon time or a bike race until the womens' time gets posted by somebody transgender. Like, who cared about it before it happened? And who argues for or against the sanctity of the athletic sex divide and actually cares about the womens' records? If these athletes are clearing the conditions and posting records, I really don't care, and tell me what the men's record is, I don't know, I don't care. And I don't have a plan to integrate sports, and that's part of the reason it's tough for me to have a solid opinion here. This is a strange space, athletic livelihood, we should defer judiciously. I'd be worried enough about trying to pop off a triple jump from the womens' board today to act like I know what the divide actually means to each individual sport. Pay the US Womens' soccer team more.Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:52, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

women are playing men in professional darts now. its truly the end times AMassiveGay (talk) 11:07, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I started something at Draft:Sex and gender and sport. Suggestions or edits are welcome (including about the title). --Annanoon (talk) 11:26, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

There was once a call for an article about sport in general (an area full of woo and misused by authoritarians) but somehow nothing came of it. Avida Dollars^{her again} 20:59, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

"Sport in general" does sound like the justification behind "smear the queer" but I don't think it's the same motivation. I like this draft. The 5 questions about testosterone really strikes me as a very cool draftspace technique. They are carefully asked so that there's no way a mainspace article can leave them unaddressed, simply because mainspace should not leave questions like these unaddressed. Unanswered, maybe. I like this draft. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:40, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Userboxes

No one really cares about them, so here's a new userbox you could use: Template:User twostate — Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 16:13, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Nice EK (talk) 20:49, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

The sad part is that one of your userboxes say you want a one-state solution. Guess who has similar veiws.— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 20:53, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

So? 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄^{Ask about our holiday specials!} 23:09, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I just want other people to use my userbox. It fits most of RW's veiws.— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 23:47, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

ye I adapted your userbox before using it ofc, but still cool EK (talk) 01:56, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Except not everyone here agrees with the "two state solution." — Oxyaena ^Harass 11:14, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

So... they don't have to use that userbox? Avida Dollars^{her again} 20:57, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

user boxes are objectively wank AMassiveGay (talk) 23:48, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

That's why I want more people to use mine.— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 00:25, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Russian Trolls

http://freetofindtruth.blogspot.com/2019/12/russian-traffic-to-this-blog-eliminated.html Now, I don't claim to be the smartest man on Earth, but wouldn't it make sense to use a picture with a date on it that verifies when this data was taken? Just a thought. Aaronmichael5 22:49, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

A reminder that this is Zachary K. Hubbard, dumbass. Of course there's zero evidence that shit's even real.— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 22:55, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I was 100% being sarcastic, of course it's all bullshit, lol (sorry if that wasn't obvious enough). Aaronmichael5 23:04 17 December 2019 (UTC).

How to start a Troll Campaign

Step 1). Find a victim.

Step 2). Compare that "victim" to an icon or popular character of some sort. For example, let's start comparing Donald Trump and his fans to Eric Cartman. The more we do so, everyone will soon use Cartman as a perfect personification of Trump's personality.

Step 3). Do this on social media, and gain followers fast.

Step 4). Acknowledge how effective your campaign is in trolling that motherf**ker.

Step 5). Do the exact same thing, only against Rand Paul. — Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 16:27, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I think this sounds kinda dumb, whether you take it seriously or try to treat it as a joke. Either way, this isn't very clever. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:49, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

It was never supposed to be clever. I would like it, however, if you compare Trump with Cartman. Because, y'know, they both hate minorities.— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 18:54, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort, but this is seriously poorly considered. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 18:57, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I get that you don't think this is funny. But I do. Trump and Cartman actually have several things in common. They are both racist and arrocant, and they are often psycopaths.— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 19:01, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

@Jeh2ow Honestly, that would be an extreme waste of time and effort. This is a fairly childish idea. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:10, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

aside from the obvious reasons this is idiotic, you just dont understand how it would play out. do you think trump would in any way be harmed by an association with cartman or that his base will give a fuck? or do you think that it would be more likely cartman would appear in memes as an American hero and taken into the hearts of his base, another badge of allegiance like maga hats? you are talking about someone who willing photoshopped his head onto the body of a literal genocidal murderer. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:05, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

South Park is (no matter how apolitical Parker and Stone claim to be) a libertarian-leaning show that tends to attract libertarian-leaning fans. My general impression is that most libertarian-leaning type already know that Trump is an asshole, but by and large have swallowed their pride and succumbed to the Trump cult (and thus showed how shallow the libertarian principle often is). The "never Trump" movement died hard. At any rate, the true trolls are making money off of Facebook clickbait by scamming the rubes (eg, here's a dose of QAnon conspiracy bullshit that ticks your racist/anti-urban/anti-fundie/whatever button for you to spread, and while your at it, why not buy some Christian approved supplements that cure everything? It's the one trick Big Pharma doesn't want you to know about!!) Soundwave106 (talk) 14:05, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I know it's a libertarian show. That's why I'm trolling conservatives who like South Park. Then again, they're too busy claiming that South Park is "satanic" or something. Expect them to be pissed when their preferred politician is compared with the fat, racist, and stupid kid from the show.— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 15:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

again, that wont happen. see my comment above. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:49, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Emily Thornberry

And to think that Yvette Cooper would be the only good candidate. Congrats, Emily. I seriously hope you win.— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 19:02, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Thornberry mocked people for flying the English flag but is more than happy to dress up as the EU flag. Yeah, I can't see her doing too well outside of London. That said I don't think she'll win the leadership anyway. Seems to be a lot of buzz about Rebecca Long-Bailey at the moment. --RWRW (talk) 00:03, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Goddamn

The fucking House Republicans right now. 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄^{Ask about our holiday specials!} 23:45, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

It’s like their doing a parade of their dumbest members. 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄^{Ask about our holiday specials!} 23:47, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Sweaty AF, I presume.— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 23:48, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Boy, Drew Ferguson’s speech was something else. It’s almost as if fucking Ben Garrison was up there. 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄^{Ask about our holiday specials!} 23:57, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Val Deming’s sign is so badly designed. No white text on white backgrounds!🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄^{Ask about our holiday specials!} 23:59, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

No worse than when Louie Gohmert, the dumbest man in Congress, vomited all over the earlier committee hearings. Cosmikdebris (talk) 00:33, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

What about the white supremacist Steve King?— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 00:50, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

All of the House Republicans are behaving like children. Just think, if they hadn’t lost the House in 2018, they’d be the majority. Think about that and then FUCKING VOTE NEXT YEAR YOU FUCKING TEENAGE COMMUNISTS. 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄^{Ask about our holiday specials!} 00:54, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank goodness for that damn blue wave. Just think about how Trump can abuse government for money laundering and those sagging bean bags, if they had majority, will let him get away with it. I'm not surprised at all that the Republicans are acting like this. They've been useless breathers for well over a decade now. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 01:45, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Orange Boy now impeached on both counts, only the third president in US history to be impeached by the House. 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄^{Ask about our holiday specials!} 02:05, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

While it is historic, there isn't a snowball's chance in hell he will actually get removed from office. (Feel free to throw this comment back at me if I'm wrong btw.) MirrorIrorriM (talk) 04:01, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

In fact, he'll likely win 2020 now, unless more democrats vote. I forget the exact phenomenon but arguing a point over and over again can actually make someone more firmly believe an opposing view.—チーズバーガー • めん  (talk • stalk) 04:08, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I only play NPR in my car. I started the day listening to a Republican say this is all a bipartisan sham, ended my day with another Republican saying this is a bipartisan sham. I registered as an independent in a purple city in a red state in 2005. For at least my entire life, it has always been a bipartisan sham, as far as I'm concerned. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:04, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

to those saying that democrats have to actually get out to vote, lets not forget that hilary got over 3 million more votes than trump. I do not understand how the electoral college works at all. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:12, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

The executive summary is the electoral college and Senate are rural biased in America. The deep polarization in America largely reflects a few divides that can be generically described as urban vs. rural and youth vs. elderly, with tribal identity actually supplanting policy (policy actually was a *little* bit important a couple decades ago, populist media notwithstanding, but I guess you can't tweet or spread bullshit memes on Facebook with this as easy). This is pretty much the same divide as Western Europe, to be honest. It'll be interesting to see the politics in a couple decades when the Boomers finally die off (already their influence is slowly declining, but their dominance is not over yet), as the worst of the right wing derp tends to show up in the rural elderly portion of the populace, and it is my impression that even in "red state" (conservative=red for the US, we like to be opposite of the UK I guess :p ) the youth look a fair bit different. Soundwave106 (talk) 13:45, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

in the land of reds under the bed, just how did red become the colour of the republicans? what a second - trumps a Russian agent, trumps a republican - its all so clear now. goddamn commie republicansAMassiveGay (talk) 13:58, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Fun Fact: if Hillary won, it would be the Republicans against the electoral college.— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 15:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

That would only be true if Hillary won the Electoral College but lost the popular vote. If Hillary won popular vote and Electoral College, they would just increase Gerrymandering to try and bias the Electoral College more for their party. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 15:25, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

That's what I'm saying. The Republicans are complete, total hypocrites. There is no way that they won't change the political landscape for their own gain.— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 15:32, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Trump impeachment is here!

theguardian.com/us-news/live/2019/dec/18/trump-impeachment-vote-today-live-latest-news-updates-democrats-house

There goes any chance of reelection. What certainly won't get Trump votes in Michigan is that he insulted a Michigan politician's dead husband. That was a new low for Trump. Thank God Trump Is Impeached!! --!!!!

— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 16:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't mean to be a downer, but it is too early to celebrate. If Republicans successfully spin the entire impeachment as nothing but a run-away bipartisan act (a narrative which is reinforced by the almost perfect bipartisan split on the issue), they could swing people behind them. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 18:28, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I endorse impeachment for reasons totally unrelated to resolving the problems of trump being in office. Prosecuting powerful people who commit crimes is not optional if you want any hope of a real society. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 19:08, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 19:16, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

This will fail. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:17, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

And suddenly it might not be passed to the senate - it is such and edifying sight to see the the government of (still) the most powerful nation on earth playing fucking stupid games over this anti-constitution fascist theocrat. Aloysius the Gaul 20:28, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

And meanwhile who is it who is really doling nothing? Aloysius the Gaul 20:29, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not celebrating him getting removed from office (because that will never happen with the GOP senators). I'm celebrating because he's getting charges and will lose any chance of getting reelected. The only way he does get reelected is by gerrymandering. So yeah, I'm celebrating. Also, let's call him "Lazy Mitch". Because, given the source you gave me, it is accurate.— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 23:25, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

That's a weird disconnect, my guy. Do you really think there's a majority Republican senate because people don't vote for their feelings over facts? Trump will survive the impeachment because the Republican party works on agenda, it does not work on constitutional standards. This is the party that refused to even look at Neil Gorsuch for the Supreme Court, but yelled and cried alongside Kavanaugh until he was cleared. They have yelled and cried throughout this whole impeachment process, as if it isn't fair, yet have refused to take part in it and kept referencing the 2016 election and how white supremacists who also supported Trump were called "a basket of deplorables" and that means every Republican is "deplorable" by every Democrat politician and voter. And their supporters love it. Trump's base is bolstered by this impeachment, and being pandered to with the same rhetoric as 3 years ago. The Democrats didn't figure out any new meta either, and Pelosi is sitting on the thing like if it fails she's a failure. Fucking just let it fly, send it to the Senate, it's lose lose, don't make it lose lose lose. Congresswoman Pelosi, you are not in a position to singlehandedly sort out the executive branch. Please play to that as a strength, you fucking maniac. The lawful good side of mw says "yes, impeachment, finally." The neutral good part of me says "crap, this is a monster of a hill" The true neutral side of me says "our politicians will not ford this river of shit" and I'm stuck trying to be prepared to paddle up shit creek for 4 more years. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:46, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Trump won 2016 because U.S. democracy is shit. That same broken system, run by broken people, will keep producing broken results. I'm utterly convinced Trump will not be impeached, that he'll win 2020, and that we're all fucked. Don't like it? Neither do I! Prove me wrong! ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 04:58, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, the impeachment is pointless. Now that Trump is impeached, this will be pointed to by Republicans as the reason why Democrats are hysterical.—チーズバーガー • めん  (talk • stalk) 10:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Meh. A lot of this is old fart rural Boomer rage, and the worst aspect of the 2016 election is that it is pretty clear way too much of this lot that is fascist-wannabe, and anti-intellectual to boot (Breitbart currently is outraged the most by the "anti-Trump liberal professor", to give an example). I don't see the House falling to the GOP in 2020 by current metrics. I don't see the Senate falling to the Democrats either. ~2035-2040 will look more interesting, because most of these Boomers that are currently propping up the current GOP idiom will be dead. There are worse case scenarios than Donald Trump, some strongmen-wannabe-idiot types catering to prejudice actually succeed in fucking up the nation's Constitution and government. (See: Narendra Modi, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, János Áder, Andrzej Duda). So far Donald Trump's greatest accomplishment is ensuring that a future Arthur Schlesinger will write a long treatise on his Twitter shitposts. Soundwave106 (talk) 13:17, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

OK, time traveler. Gol Sarnitt (talk)

You're welcome, Mr. Pelosi's-gonna-re-elect-Donald-Trump. Soundwave106 (talk) 02:45, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Article for the 2020 Labour Leadership Election

There are now three confirmed candidates for the race: Emily Thornberry, Keir Starmer, and Clive Lewis (unfortunately). There will likely be more, (e.g: RLB, Phillips, Nandy) but the race will be presumably in full effect by January. I'll bring this back up on the day, but I ask if RationalWiki should have one for it like with the 2020 Democratic and Republican presidential races, and the 2019 Conservative Party leadership election?
I feel I must add that I do not think I am suited to creating the page, after reflecting on my heavily criticised page on the 2019 general election. Minish (talk) 23:56, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

That's a crazy idea, and I love crazy ideas. Let's do it! Also, like the one on the Democrats, we should talk about the pros and cons of each candidate.— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 23:59, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Since her TERF sympathies (and maybe actually being one) will be hugely discussed, here's an article from gal-dem about Jess Phillips' testy relationship with thinly masked bigotry overall. Worth noting I have some doubts Phillips will be nominated if she cannot get sufficient support for her nom among unions and CLPs. Minish (talk) 00:39, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

we don't need one. uk party leaders are not equivalent to presidential candidates and the campaign for leadership is not equivalent primaries. uk politics is more about consensus, with governments and parties not defined by a single individual or a single post in quite the same way they are in the us. there are no vetos nor executive actions. and that's aside from primaries and presidential elections being an obscene two year process. the uk, elections of all kinds are a few weeks. unless there is something particularly unusual, theres nothing Rationalwiki worthy. if there turns out to be, then it would be better to see how it plays out rather than live blogging and pointless predictions. AMassiveGay (talk) 02:20, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

and for the record we didn't need one for the conservative contest either AMassiveGay (talk) 02:23, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

do we still have forums here? or a cooperative essay if you must. you can then have an actual debate which might be more useful than another testament to how shit we are at accurately assessing the situation free from our own biases AMassiveGay (talk) 02:38, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

@AMassiveGay I don't think we even have the forums. I am remember a debate involving getting rid of the forums as seemingly nobody used them. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 03:09, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Christianity Today steps up

This Evangelical magazine calls for Trump's removal!

"Christianity Today magazine is an evangelical Christian periodical that was founded in 1956 and is based in Carol Stream, Illinois. The Washington Post calls Christianity Today, "evangelicalism's flagship magazine"; The New York Times describes it as a "mainstream evangelical magazine."Ariel31459 (talk) 00:16, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Even a clock can stop.— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 00:22, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

At least that's what it takes for them to say Trump is immoral despite Trump's record of being a pimper. To be fair, they do go on later for talking about that unpleasant aspect of Trump. One of the first comments now called something a "leftist rag", which I'm not sure is directed as Washington effing Times or Christianity Today. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 00:23, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

It's really encouraging that this publication has the balls to state the obvious. Best line from the source:

Consider what an unbelieving world will say if you continue to brush off Mr. Trump’s immoral words and behavior in the cause of political expediency. If we don’t reverse course now, will anyone take anything we say about justice and righteousness with any seriousness for decades to come?

--Cosmikdebris (talk) 00:27, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

It's kind of surprising to see Evangelical Christians being more interested in morality than political gain. Maybe it's going to be a new trend?Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 08:01, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I doubt it.— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 13:13, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Christianity Today is Billy Graham's baby. Billy Graham cast his lot with Richard "I am not a crook" Nixon and later deeply regretted it. I see that Franklin Graham slammed Christianity Today for their current position on Trump. Like father, like son? Soundwave106 (talk) 13:48, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Wrestling

https://www.forbes.com/sites/blakeoestriecher/2019/03/14/wwe-needs-to-stop-telling-its-fans-that-wrestling-is-fake/#30296f3c15a0 I didn't realize that there was legitimately a conspiracy that pro wrestling is real. For crying out loud my 2nd grade Christmas pageant had better acting than the WWE. I notice you guys aren't big fans of Forbes (Neither am I) so you're probably not surprised to see this, but still, lol Aaronmichael5 02:54 20 December 2019 (UTC).

while I find wrestling's popularity is an anathema to me, this isn't a conspiracy in any real sense. its more akin to not telling young kids there is no santa - you dont want to 'spoil' it. with wrestling you don't need reminding that its all artifice when it is so over the top unreal and the commitment to kayfabe and soap opera is the part of the draw. the article is saying you lose that when they break character so often. AMassiveGay (talk) 04:32, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Wrestling has been giving a few winks to the "smart marks" for a couple decades now, TBH, so I'm not sure what Forbes is babbling about. This isn't the 1988 Hulkamania era where Dave Meltzer actually was a semi-controversial figure. Soundwave106 (talk) 13:54, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Withhold

Timing of Trump Impeachment Trial in Limbo as Pelosi Holds Out for Assurances

I don't understand what's happening with Pelosi and the Senate. Does someone know how it works? Melody (talk) 12:43, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I do. We need 67 votes from the senate to remove Trump from office. Given that the Senate is controlled by the GOP, it would be nearly impossible to remove Trump. But because the House voted to impeach him, he will still face a trial, or trials.— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 13:15, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

From The Guardian: "The impeachment process has two main parts: the passage of articles of impeachment by the House of Representatives followed by a trial in the Senate, with the chief justice of the US supreme court presiding. If a two-thirds Senate majority votes to convict, the president is removed from office."

What I don't understand is what happens if Pelosi withhold the articles of impeachment therefore stopping the trial in the Senate, and if she can actually do so. Melody (talk) 14:20, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Do you want a kangaroo court as McConnell and Trump to? That's what happens if Pelosi hands over the articles of impeachment immediately. She's a skilled politician, she knows that they want a show trial, she has leverage, she's going to use it. She's trying to force the Senate to have a real trial or no trial, neither of which are desired by Trump/McConnell who want a quick exoneration without evidence or testimony from witnesses. Bongolian (talk) 18:42, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

This doesn't answer my question. Melody (talk) 19:22, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

At this point we're basically at the half-way point of impeachment. The president has been impeached by the House of Representatives. The House decides whether to investigate, what to investigate, and whether there is sufficient evidence to draft Articles of Impeachment in accordance with the slightly vague standards of the Constitution ("high crimes and misdemeanors"). The House is free to reimpeach the president on more charges at a later date should more evidence come out, though this would likely be even more politically fraught. The Senate is required to review and voting on the House's articles, but it cannot do so until the House gives them to the Senate. The Senate can largely set its own rules with regard to the impeachment trial but is required to have the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to act as judge. A simple majority of the Senate decides what the rules of the trial will be but, 2/3 majority is required to convict. Conviction usually implies immediate removal from office and the inability to hold a federal office again. The judge in this case is likely to be somewhat hands off, just keeping the trial within the bounds of what the Senate decides on, though the judge could conceivably be more activist. Bongolian (talk) 20:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Remember

... as you survey the season of goodwill, tacky decorations and family disagreements - there is a god somewhere who loves you and aims to protect you (but how they do so is not always obvious). Anna Livia (talk) 15:09, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

{Swears and slams front door in missionary's face) Spud (talk) 15:23, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I mean to post that here of all places is definitely some kind of trolling, right? The only good in the world is the good we make in it. And god's not out there watching out for anyone, so watch out for the people in your life. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 15:39, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Tis the season for Christmas music, and it's worth pointing out that composers on the atheist to deist spectrum (ironically) have written some of the best best, most beloved spiritual Christmas music of the season, and even a few pop standards too. (Not to mention that one extremely popular ballet that somehow became associated with this season). So at least we can enjoy the tunes. (As long as we avoid the pop schmaltz which to be fair also were sometimes written by agnostics.) Soundwave106 (talk) 19:00, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I did not say #which# god(s) - and they may be making use of Titivillus and similar: and if you do good/make even minor improvements to the world/enjoy the pleasant things in life (a sunset, or a whole great pile of tinsel etc) you will have a positive impact (whether or not you believe in some version of Pascal's wager or felicific calculus). Anna Livia (talk) 23:54, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I, for one, accept Nyarlathotep's loving Christmas wishes, and I will endeavor to do more to spread His Word next year. 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄^{Ask about our holiday specials!} 00:25, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

And any number of gods are now signing up to 'GodGym', 'Dry January' and suchlike (how long they persist is another matter). Anna Livia (talk) 17:15, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Armenian Genocide denial edits crossing the line to racism

The Turkish authorities and Turks in general are two different groups. RationalWiki shouldn't be saying "There is no limit to the deceitfulness of the Turk" unless it's a quote. - Immigrant laborer (talk) 18:41, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

You should take this up with @Summa Atheologica on the talk page (Talk:Armenian Genocide denial) first. Bongolian (talk) 18:48, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

The authorities aren't the ones coming up with the claims I'm citing. The denialists are composed mostly of rank-and-file people. It's not really a top-down thing.𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 18:56, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Most people I know that deny the Armenian Genocide are usually Turkish nationalists, a la Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and the only time someone who isn't Turkish denies the genocide its usually people in the Alt-Right saying that genocides against anyone who arent white guys in Western Europe are fake. Anyways, something important to know is that most Turks acknowledge the genocide happened, and saying that all Turks are genocidal maniacs are examples of the Category mistake and Guilt by Association fallacies.— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 19:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

@Jeh2ow Actually no, most Turks deny the genocide. It's probably the case that most of those you know don't, but that doesn't prove much.𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 19:34, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

IMO that particular sentence is still very much crossing the line. I'm not sure how "rank-and-file" comes into this at all. If it were reworded to "the deceitfulness of Turkish denialists" or "nationalists" I think it would sit better. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 19:18, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I think I'll use "revisionists".𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 19:44, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

@Summa Atheologica I'm talking about people I know. And even if its true that most, or even all Turks deny the genocide, the idea that Turks are deceitful bastards still pretty much cross the line from debunking the denial of the Armenian genocide to outright racism.— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 19:54, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Jeh2ow and Immigrant laborer, the wording is a bit questionable. RoninMacbeth (talk) 02:00, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Before or after I changed stuff? 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄^{Ask about our holiday specials!} 02:46, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

The article seems fine now. RoninMacbeth (talk) 07:39, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Evolution is the Bible of the Atheist religion

At least according to a fundie church in town that is known for its homophobic church signs. I got a chuckle from it. Guess they forget that Christians who support evolution and the age of the Earth? We are evil atheist liberal communists --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 02:49, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

This is an old argument, let's not live giving an old take on it. "evolution is the bible of the atheist religion" is nuts, and I think it's supposed to be nuts as a title. So first, to get us all on the same page, we all need to admit that Darwin did not coin the word "evolution," but it was also a pretty good word to use. As a Bible, evolution doesn't work. Atheism is not even defined enough to inherently mean a disbelief in magic powers, and religion can be broken down into behaving in a way that expects a certain set of parameters to always be true. Is it really any wonder that atheism is labeled by high-functioning theists as a mirror to a religious standard when we engage in "this is right and you are wrong" level language?Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:36, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

as an atheist, evolution doesn't even factor into my atheism. it was taught at school and I didnt pay much attention to it. its an American obsession and americans are weird. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:26, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. Some of the more interesting usages of evolution might be: Evolution of religion. Evolution of the ideas of god. Evolution of the ideas and philosophy of Donald Trump. (OK, that last one might not work.) Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 11:39, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

And don't forget the evolution of creationism: creationism -> baraminism -> intelligent design -> teach the controversy. Bongolian (talk) 19:21, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Evolution of racism: hating blacks-> hating asians-> hating jews-> hating Muslims-> hating ghosts. We've come a long way from hating vaginas.— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 19:25, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Kick the Ladder Mentality

I'm an American Midwestern Bible-Rust-Blood first edition Millennial. I have noticed that things like "gatekeeping" and "ceilings" boil down to an attitude of one action. Kicking the ladder. For some reason, it's super important to not only make it to the top of whatever field, it's key to make sure whatever efforts it took to get there cannot be duplicated or replicated. And not even with high stakes, fandoms are bad now. Just, absolutely, do not, under any circumstances, let anyone else come up. You climbed that ladder, kick that ladder. I don't mean to blame anyone for my blown opportunities. But really, opportunities are only becoming a hotter commodity. The same people who scoff at IG models carelessly perpetuated the system where IG models had to exist. Pensions used to be a thing. the good old days argument is bunk, that ladder got kicked. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 06:00, 21 December 2019 (UTC) 05:58, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

I think it's mostly resentment. People had crappy lives and are unhappy, so they want everyone else to have a crappy life and be unhappy. If they made it, then great, everyone after gets to suffer just as much if not more than they did. If anyone else suffers less, then it's somehow not fair. 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄^{Ask about our holiday specials!} 07:08, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Or they had crappy lives and blame their lot on minorities, rather than the higher-ups (yes I'm talking about Republicans) that are lying about minority groups and the poor to try to distract attention away from their own corruption and bunk trickle-down policies (which doesn't encompass all the grift they do, but trickle-down is an immediate example). --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 23:33, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

How to download an entire YouTube channel easily

Over the years, I've heard complaints that cranks are taking down their YouTube videos. Because archive.org and archive.is don't archive videos when you archive the page, the videos are more or less gone forever. In the below terminal command, I'm scraping the entire playlist for Steven Crowder's "Change My Mind":

./youtube-dl "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtftZPL-k7Y&list=PL3e1orPYt_4ZHGjuivZFsyJ81RL7j7_E1"

To download entire channel, enter in the channel's URL. This program, despite the name, is not limited to just YouTube. It works on other video services like BitChute and Vimeo.

./youtube-dl "https://www.bitchute.com/channel/mistermetokur/"

I would suggest making it a site policy to archive videos on archive.org — or at least a suggestion as downloading an entire channel and uploading it requires a good amount time and hard drive space. You just need to create an account on archive.org and upload the files from your computer. The program works on Linux and Windows and is FOSS. Download it here: https://youtube-dl.org/ —チーズバーガー • めん  (talk • stalk) 10:43, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

The documentation says it will also work on a Mac.[6] Do you know what Archive.org's policy on uploads like this is, with regard to size and possible copyright issues? Bongolian (talk) 05:27, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

So apparently archive.orge does archive YouTube videos. It archived Gangnam Style. I tried archiving one of Metokur's videos, and I got the message: "Sorry, the Wayback Machine does not have this video (C5aIPJ0QziU) archived (or not indexed yet)." I found a guide to archive an entire an entire YouTube channel on archive.org.—チーズバーガー • めん  (talk • stalk) 12:07, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

OK, good. We should have a guideline that giving pages a bronze, silver or gold brainstar should require that all Twitter and and YouTube links be moved to archival links (archive.org or archive.is), and that all links be checked for functionality. Bongolian (talk) 18:50, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Seconded.—チーズバーガー • めん  (talk • stalk) 20:18, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I've updated this page RationalWiki:Article rating. Have a look. Bongolian (talk) 21:20, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I researched further and the YouTube archiving service I linked above is for archive-it, which is part of archive.org. However, you have to submit a request to sign up. It appears to be a service for libraries and Universities. In other words, I doubt RationalWiki will be able to sign up. So as a result, we are left with two options on archiving websites:

1. Archive them manually by submitting a request to archive.org for each video. Keep in mind, that even though the page is archived, the video takes more time to archive.
2. Youtube-dl. This is a more surefire method to save videos. I see there's already videos archived for Mister Metokur that has been up for a year with this method. Archive.org tends to have a hands off approach to hosting copyrighted content. Many people don't know this, but you can even find Mac and Windows disk images on there, with software to crack them. However, copyright holders can request content to be removed, this happened with those Nintendo Power magazines.

—チーズバーガー • めん  (talk • stalk) 23:37, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘OK, I've made another edit on RationalWiki:Article rating to reflect that. Bongolian (talk) 01:03, 23 December 2019 (UTC)