RationalWiki talk:What is going on in the world?/Archive22

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 9 January 2016. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: , (new)(back)

That link about the delegate shooting herself...[edit]

That bit at the end seems cruel, somehow. Almost anywhere else that joke would be fine, but... It doesn't seem right when referring to a specific accident. Narky Sawtooth (Nyar~) 08:21, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

You'd think there'd be better ways to carry a gun though. Seriously, you're putting your gun right next to your upper body vitals and a couple of meaty targets. (talk) 18:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
The one thing that seems to get missed is that somehow it was pointing at her head when it happened. Like, think of the logistics of that. Mayo2017 (talk) 04:08, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
My thought exactly. I wondered how simply readjusting such a holster could result in the barrel pointing at your eye. Just off the bat the most likely scenario to me is that she must have taken off the bra to fiddle with the holster. Anyway, why the effin' eff would anyone carry a gun in a bra holster? Quite apart from the obvious safety issues, it's not like it makes for an easy or quick draw. Still, I guess that a bra holster at least averts the risk of putting your gun in your handbag and having your 2-year old son accidentally kill you with it. But seriously, if you're going to lug a gun around with you, get a holster that's comfortable, accessible, and safe (and you may even want to consider whether you actually need to bring a gun along in the first place). ScepticWombat (talk) 05:58, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


Look, I've been willing to look past some of the stupid stuff he's said, since he's at least saying better things than many previous popes. But we're all adults here, and I need to make my feelings quite clear on this, so let me just say YOU. FUCKING. CUNT. Mayo2017 (talk) 18:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

QueueCue Americans freaking out about the use of the word "cunt". (talk) 18:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Cue an EFL speaker making fun of your spelling...--ZooGuard (talk) 19:02, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Whoops. (talk) 19:37, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Nuclear weapon, or Herod? It's a tricky one - David Gerard (talk) 21:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Trans people better be able to raise a bodyguard of 2,000 soldiers, be able to induce impulsive shock, and be able to make me a better mousetrap. Either that, or they can't be a Herod. --Madman (talk) 04:47, 21 February 2015 (UTC)The Madman

Measles breakout, Berlin[edit]

Is it German measles? Ikanreed (talk) 14:34, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Nope. The German word for that is “Röteln”, for which Google delivers no recent news articles. --Sophophobe (talk) 19:29, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
I do believe you mean Liberty Measles. Mayo2017 (talk) 16:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I know this is 1 month old, but[edit]

The Mises institute has hosted a speaker that's pretty damn pro-secession. America is just sooo big, y'know? FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 00:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay? I don't know why this surprises you, the right in the US is way up it's own ass in terms of "we're so oppressed by losing elections." The various components of that ideology all support each other on that central point. Ikanreed (talk) 16:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
The whole video was just too surreal right-winger for me. What oppression is he facing that's worthy of creating an entirely new state (or lack thereof)? FuzzyDogPotato (talk/stalk) 20:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Being the Mises institute, the answer in this case is almost certainly: any taxes at all. Ikanreed (talk) 20:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Felonious murder[edit]

I can actually get behind the concept of felony murder (described here by NY lawyer Nathan Burney in convenient comic form). Say a bank robbery goes wrong and a bystander is accidentally killed by a security guard in the ensuing gunfight. The felony murder law allows for the hostage takers to be liable for that death, rather than having it ruled as accidental killing by the guard.

It's just cases like these where strict adherence (or overadherence) to the law means weird things happen. Kinda like the guy who got life in prison for stealing a handful of kid's VHS tapes. Noir LeSable (talk) 07:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I can't get behind it at all. I can think of very few possible situations where it's justified and plenty where it isn't. ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 08:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Why exactly can't you make the hostage takers liable without making it a felony? (talk) 09:03, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I think it's weirder with the example mentioned in the source: If a bank robbery goes south and one of the robbers is killed in a shoot out with police or guards, then the surviving robbers can be charged with felony murder of their dead "colleague", now that's pretty effed up. ScepticWombat (talk) 09:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
This is one of those "only in America" conversations. It's as if the "good guys" can do no wrong whereas the "bad guys" can be blamed for anything and everything.This is what struck me about Ferguson - Michael Brown was believed to be a shoplifter - or, at the very least, he was guilty of being poor and black - so shooting him dead was just hunky dory.
Of course, in practically any other country in the world, a bank robbery that goes wrong wouldn't end up in a gunfight. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 10:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm a big fan of holding people culpable for the likely consequences of their actions. I'm not a fan of holding people culpable for the improbable consequences of their actions. Reckless driving has a likely consequence of a crash, so by all means throw the book at them. Putting a leaflet through a door might give someone an anaphylactic reaction to the ink, but it would be so unusual that it would be foolish to hold the leafleteer responsible (unless they had good reason to know about the allergy, naturally). So I guess in this case it hinges on whether the US is fucked up enough that a hail of lead is a likely consequence of a simple house-breaking. Queexchthonic murmurings 10:41, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
FWIW, "felony" is (in most places, currently) defined as any crime that carries a potential prison sentence of a year or more. (Used to be that a felony was any offense punishable by death. Then again, pickpocketing was punished by death at the time.) The felony murder rule as Blackstone had it made any felon strictly liable if anyone died as a result of the crime, including his companions in crime and bystanders. Committing any serious crime creates a risk that somebody might die as a result; so if anyone does that's murder. The controversy in that case in Indiana comes because we've defined felony murder in such a way that makes it appear as if one of the felons has to do the killing. - Smerdis of Tlön, A ⇒ ¬A. 14:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
The problem, to me, is that so much of the US's laws are built around asking the question "Do they deserve to be punished?" rather than ignoring karma and just building things around minimizing crime through a mixture of disincentives, rehabilitation, and containment. Felony murder, where you hold people culpable for others' actions has no bearing on any of those. Ikanreed (talk) 15:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
"Karma"? And here I thought RW was all secular. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 15:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I meant people(of various perspectives) using the justice system to enforce a kind of notion of karma. War. Ikanreed (talk) 15:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
On a tangential note, that comic series is gold. Thanks for sharing. Mayo2017 (talk) 15:40, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

It makes zero sense to me that surviving criminals can be prosecuted for felony murder because one of their partners in crime has been killed by law enforcement. At most they ought to be prosecuted for manslaughter (along with armed robbery and what have you, of course), given that drunk drivers aren't (to my knowledge) prosecuted for (felony) murder for running others over while doing something that's also both criminal and extremely dangerous. And no, I was not making a case for introducing felony murder as a possible indictment in cases of people being accidentally killed in drunk driving accidents, just in case someone was wondering. ScepticWombat (talk) 16:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

It makes sense if your framing of justice is "making the bad guy pay for it." It really does. People want to see those who do things malevolently punished, and when bad things happen, they naturally blame the "evilest" person involved for it. It's dumb, but it's actually quite consistent with American attitudes towards justice in general. Ikanreed (talk) 16:08, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
We Brits have done our bit: Derek Bentley was executed although it was his under age accomplice who did the killing. He's since been pardoned, so that's OK then! Scream!! (talk) 16:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

In the two felony murder cases I've seen reported internationally (the Indiana one, as WIGOed, and this one in Florida which was posted on WIGO a few years ago), the 'murderers' were unarmed housebreakers whose companions were shot by homeowners who - due to state 'castle laws' - could shoot to kill with total impunity. I think there is something very wrong with this situation, & it's not comparable to the "bank heist goes wrong & someone gets killed in the shootout" situation described above. There's also a related issue around the use of deadly force in defence of property vs defence of life. Does preventing a crime from being completed really justified killing those involved if nobody's life is actually in danger? ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 13:48, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

The real life examples you cite are simply more absurd than my hypothetical one. As for the "castle laws" they certainly do seem to prioritise property over life and limb - but I guess the logic is that criminals "have it coming" and that home owners should not fear applying (deadly) force against any home invasion. Can't say I agree with any of these, but I'm not a U.S. citizen and so have neither an insight into, nor even an indirect connection to, the public debate and choices behind adopting such laws. ScepticWombat (talk) 14:04, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I dunno, but when someone invades your home it's not just a matter of defending one's property. A home owner is under no obligation to correctly assess the motives and threat level of the invading party, so if they fear for their lives or that of loved ones, the option of using deadly force in defense may not seem inappropriate, even if it turns out there was no threat at all. (talk) 18:39, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Lobbying & prostitution in North Carolina[edit]

The State Ethics Commission letter cited in the Addicting Info piece explicitly states: "However, a lobbyist or lobbyist principal's provision of paid prostitution services by a third party to a designated individual could constitute a gift or thing of value, albeit an illegal one, depending on the particular facts." But Addicting Info says the exact opposite, reporting that "lobbying firms can hire people with the explicit goal to seduce and fornicate with politicians in order to garner favor" and repeating this claim throughout its article. Is there some subtle distinction that I'm missing here or is Addicting Info (and other news sources running the same story) just ignoring that part of the letter & misreporting? WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 13:55, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you're missing anything. This is simply sloppy and sensationalist reporting. The NC State Ethics Commission issued a advisory opinion in response to what they apparently thought was a rather vague and somewhat confusing request for guidance from a staffer in the NC Secretary of State's office. They weren't issuing a formal ruling or a new regulation, they were simply trying to answer a question about the current law on the books. Their answer appears to be quite commonsensical: consensual sexual relations between two adults is neither reportable nor an ethics violation under NC ethics laws, but paying for a prostitute in exchange for official favors very explicitly would be. There does seem to be a loophole, in that, in my reading of the letter, a registered lobbyist could engage in sexual relations with a state official and informally trade sexual favors for official favors, as long as they aren't explicitly being paid by anyone to do so. But that seems to be problem with the ethics laws as written, not anything to do with the Ethics Commission or its opinion. (talk) 17:58, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I think there's perhaps the additional issue that as prostitution is illegal, it's unlikely to leave much of a paper trail. So if an official had a prostitute paid for, even if that was found out then unless it could be proved that money changed hands there would be no violation as per policy. Which makes the enforcement of that provision somewhat weak. Also, it would appear that a madame or pimp could 'comp' someone and still be within the policy. Sensationalist, yes, but there's a germ of a concern in there. Queexchthonic murmurings 11:09, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, yes, a prostitute could be hired without leaving a paper trail. But then a gift or "thing of value" - even a big fat cash bribe - could be given without leaving a paper trail, so I don't think that's what places it outside policy. I do think there's a valid concern that the letter seems to be indicating the state government wouldn't see a sexual relationship between an official & a lobbyist as any sort of conflict of interest - but I dunno, maybe this would be overstepping their authority? Anyway, I find it strange that all the coverage is focusing on the prostitution angle & suggesting that the State Ethics Commission is 'approving' prostitutes as gifts when the letter appears to explicitly say the opposite. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:47, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

weasels domesticating woodpeckers[edit]

We have witnessed the first case of the domestication of a wild animal by another species. Weasels are developing air transport ! Hamster (talk) 18:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

And with that, a society vastly superior to ours. We've got a lot of catching up to do. (talk) 18:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I have seen a squirrel being given a ride by a hawk, and a marmot going the same way. In both cases, the mammal was not up in the passenger compartment, but down in the cargo hold, presumably for use as a snack later. I don't plan to get all out of breath trying to catch up. Alec Sanderson (talk) 18:29, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
And we have Ryanair. I still think weasels win. Vulpius (talk) 19:56, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

"Yucky eunuch-y business" ?[edit]

While it's obviously bad that all these people got castrated because some bullshit a guru said, the phrase "yucky eunuch-y business" seems pretty eunuch-phobic. (talk) 19:18, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

That Applebee's story.[edit]

I can't think of how it's of interest to this wiki, outside of "Religitard got burnt! Ayy lmao". — Unsigned, by: Hotwateramericano / talk / contribs

That actually describes a healthy portion of our contetnt. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 18:38, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
The valid burning in this situation was not to his face, but more to his legal pride, and thus relevant here, I think. Trick (talk) 19:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
From what I can understand about the story, the reason his lawsuit was dismissed was because he didn't suffer actual damages, not because his case was without merit per se.— Unsigned, by: Hotwateramericano / talk / contribs
No actual damage & a context where he could have expected food & dishes to be hot & it to be unwise to put his face close to them. The "praying" aspect is really rather a red herring here. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 00:08, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Ted Cruz and Country: ...What?[edit]

Clearly I do not subscribe the Ted Cruz School of Cartoon Logic, so I was initially confused by his comments on rock and country. But after listening to some country music not made by Johnny Cash or Carrie Underwood (i.e. the crap), I'd suspect this is because modern country music is about praising the American military with all the substance of a tween romance novel. What do you think? Dwbaker994 (talk) 19:10, 30 March 2015 (UTC) The world is not enough.

That the rapist isn't remorseful doesn't surprise me at all[edit]

But this: The other lawyer, AP Singh, had said in a previous televised interview: "If my daughter or sister engaged in pre-marital activities and disgraced herself and allowed herself to lose face and character by doing such things, I would most certainly take this sort of sister or daughter to my farmhouse, and in front of my entire family, I would put petrol on her and set her alight."

Ho. Ly. Shit. (talk) 11:46, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Wow, what is wrong with that country? Can they really have a space program yet be so socially backwards? Super Dude,Where's my car? 01:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Social progress isn't a prerequisite for space activity. For example, NASA had existed for 9 years before the US Supreme Court declared laws against interracial marriage to be unconstitutional. Frederick♠♣♥♦ 02:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
And it's not like Soviet Russia was notably progressive in its treatment of civilians while they were doing all that space stuff. (talk) 13:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

ISIS's anti-archaeological shenanigans[edit]

Don't get me wrong, I think the destruction of these ancient artifacts is atrocious and repugnant, but wouldn't it be telling/depressing/hilarious if this, the destruction of old sculptures and buildings, and not the mass killings of innocent civilians and population groups, is what shakes the world into taking real, decisive action against ISIS? (talk) 13:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The middle-east in particular has a real knack for selective outrage. Apokalyps2547 (talk) 13:51, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
The Taliban did the same to those Buddhist statues, which pissed off the world more than the subjugation of women and oppression of minorities thing. Then 9/11 happened and the rest of the world (except some of the Islamic parts) was rather happy the US went in to kick out the Taliban. Especially Pakistan, because they kept getting all that money for "fighting" terrorism. With friends like those, who needs enemies? CorruptUser (talk) 15:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

For your information ...[edit]

Those forty seven Republicans are heroes for going against Federal Law and undermining Obama's treacherous attempts at forming an alliance with the West's worst enemy, Iran and his attempts at undermining our relationship with our greatest ally, Israel. Obama should be impeached and imprisoned for high treason. He won't be but he should be. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 20:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

rational story, Boehner - David Gerard (talk) 20:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
The liberal parodists are among our midst, even as we speak! --Madman (talk) 20:18, 10 March 2015 (UTC)The Madman

Texan Teabagger[edit]

Interestingly, while "table" means "add to the agenda" in British English, it means "remove from consideration" in American. Or should that be "whilst"? Whoover (talk) 17:30, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The rabbi kidnap-torture-divorce story[edit]

The link should maybe mention that the rabbis and their associates are hitmen and are not working pro bono. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyarnyar~) 00:58, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

The WIGO entry already says "kidnapping and torturing". How on earth would you get "pro bono" from reading that? €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 01:11, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
That article is going on two years old. Why now? Whoover (talk) 19:07, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Usually because whoever posted it didn't notice that. WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm a bit late on saying this, but: I meant "pro bono" in a "their mind" way. They're paid hitmen and weren't doing it solely from any delusions of heroism and justice. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyarnyar~) 10:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Hitman Rabbi would make a great prime-time show.--Madman (talk) 19:19, 10 March 2015 (UTC)The Madman

That measles "skeptic"[edit]

Best Schadenfrued of March, hands down. And good on the doctor who got the money. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:26, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Evolution Marketplace's downfall[edit]

I hate, hate to bask in schadenfreude considering some people are broke, but come the fuck on. Do Bitcoiners really think that the fifth wave of darknet drug dealers will be more reliable than the last one? |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg I reject your reality. 16:18, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

They all find various ways to frame these things: "I like when trust networks can fail because it trains people how the real free market works" or "They didn't implement X security protocol that will resolve these issues" or "Cost of doing business". Some of course, get fed up and abandon the market, but they don't continue to hang out on bitcoin forums promising that it's the currency of the future. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:27, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Incoherent hate speech[edit]

Written with red paint, the vandals scrawled "Muslims get out" on a school wall. They also painted a swastika on the wall. The Hindu Temple and Cultural Center was tagged with a similar message and the same red paint.

One one level, this is amazingly stupid.

On another level, this confirms my belief that a major cause of "racist" incidents is the age-old adolescent desire to be very, very naughty. There's grounds to doubt how much actual hate goes into these "hate crimes", and how much is a simple desire to troll. In which case the shrieking, priggish reactions of officialdom, and the furious blogging and propagation through social media the incident may generate, including this WIGO, are part of the problem. - Smerdis of Tlön, If you burn with an inner fire, you are already damned. 01:56, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Question for you: those Okie frat boys: hate speech/vile racism, or just "boys being boys"? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 01:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
That's a different matter entirely, but that incident also struck me as being tempered by a large helping of "you can't handle the truth." There are things everybody knows that you still aren't allowed to say. - Smerdis of Tlön, If you burn with an inner fire, you are already damned. 02:33, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
This isn't the first time & won't be the last that non-Muslim minorities have been the target of ignorant Islamophobic attacks. That doesn't mean it's "not racist" or "not hateful", and neither does the "desire to troll" aspect. ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:48, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm not saying that it's not racist or hateful. Just that I doubt the level of ideological commitment behind it. Rather, that sort of thing is a proven way to get Very Serious People saying Very Serious Stuff. Those reactions invite copycats. - Smerdis of Tlön, If you burn with an inner fire, you are already damned. 00:50, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

The FEMA thing[edit]

I'm not comfortable with the poor people exposed to hurricane and flooding risk in my state lacking tools to prepare for evacuations just because a slim majority of us elected assholes for office. There's a lot of completely innocent people put in harm's way to correct some idiot policies that amount to being wrong. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

There's still a bit of time before hurricane season starts, so I'm looking forward to hearing about the organizing you'll be doing to get those thousands and thousands of people onto the lawn of the (I'm guessing Florida?) state capitol to hold your shitty leaders accountable for their actions. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 15:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
North Carolina, and we already repeatedly protested some serious shit that went down in the wake of that republican majority, and hundreds of people have been arrested for their trouble. And Hurricane preparation has to be done months to years in advance. Maintaining evacuation routes, having coordinators, building/maintaining shelters, stocking emergency supplies, and having a few emergency crews on standby are all things you can't do when you get your 48 hour hurricane watch.
And the idiot governor we've got is going to stand on some policy of "good, let's cut big goverment and deny climate change", and the people who lose out are going to be the already economically dis-empowered people on the east side of the state, the next time a disaster does strike. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:32, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
On the positive side, I can tell you with strong certainty who will be the first ones against the wall when the revolution finally comes. In the meanwhile, stay dry. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 17:22, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Frankly, Rick Scott shouldn't even be governor of Florida. He barely won and should have lost. As a Floridian, I welcome this ultimatum for Scott. Florida is one of the states that can least afford to ignore the effects of climate change. We deserve better. If there's a way to force states to realize reality, I'm all for it. I'd argue that this is no different than the way a national drinking age was established in the US. Hopefully our governors are smart enough to realize the danger their idiocy puts the state in even if they don't recognize their own idiocy.

Miss Universe (Japan)[edit]

OK, so an anachronistic beauty contest has no problems with skin colour but there are a couple of nutters on Twitter who do. And this is a news story. This is a classic case of a tabloid inventing scandal where, quite frankly, there is none. I'd put it in Clogs. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 16:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Put it wherever you'd like. --Miekal 16:25, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
...as the Miss Universe contestant said to the Miss Universe judge. Queexchthonic murmurings 16:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
The word "but" is misplaced in the wigo page item. Work it out. Oh, and "the half black" thing? Just fuck off back to the past and take your time machine with you, you ain't ready for 2015. London Grump (talk) 18:03, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

This story was alread WIGOed and then hidden over on Clogosphere. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:54, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Intolerant Jackass Act[edit]

I changed the WIGO to a Daily Kos article to conform to the rules, but I think the Slate blog is more comprehensive, and has more interesting analysis. MaillardFillmore (talk) 00:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Given that "sodomy" is sort of a catchall expression for "things we're too scared to say that God doesn't hate", I'd stock up on bullets :D .

Cameron third term[edit]

He's actually running for a second term this May, his "third term" would be in 2020 if he ran for it, but he's saying he's not. The reason it's a news story is that it'd lead to an odd position at some point during the end of his term where he'd have to step down and have someone replace him before his term was properly up, which is a fairly unusual thing in the UK. The way it's written on the page makes it seem like he's not going to run for this election, which he is. X Stickman (talk) 23:41, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't get that! --Sophophobe (talk) 17:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
'Salright, the only reason I knew it is because I've got a new car that doesn't have an MP3 player built in, so rather than listening to my own collection, I've had Radio 4 on whenever I'm out. Now I'm all knowledgeable. X Stickman (talk) 15:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Ted Cruz does not break the law, unlike Al Sharpton who has not paid his taxes[edit]

Ted Cruz complies with federal law even if he doesn't like it. He may try to shut down the government over that law, but he personally abides by the law. Al Sharpton, on the other hand, wants more taxes to redistribute the wealth, but won't pay his own taxes. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 19:43, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I am absolutely glad Ted Cruz complies with federal law, being a large believer in law and order. As for Al Sharpton, I a) don't care what his opinion on taxes is, as he's a private citizen and not a public official, and b) believe that he should be prosecuted if he's engaging in tax evasion. And to my non-surprise, action is being taken against him for it.. I am glad to see law and order prevailing for both Sharpton and Cruz. --Castaigne (talk) 20:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

–––Everyone knows that Al not-so-Sharpton is the standard by which American morality is measured by. I sure am glad Al Sharpton is a congre- oh. Besides, Ted Cruz seems to have a hard time understanding what federal law is. Gotta repeal that there common core legislation. Mayo2017 (talk) 02:20, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

stopping bills becoming coins[edit]

I don't think this is a bad thing. Here in blighty there are too many coins weighing down and rattling in my pockets making my wallet look empty. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Preferring paper over metal is not a bad thing. Creating bills preventing "Washington elites" from ordering the production of dollar coins because you have an irrational fear of anything "European" is a bad thing. Frederick♠♣♥♦ 00:34, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Meh, I'd be annoyed if I had to muck about with paper for quantities as low as £2. Looking forward to the groovy new quid, too. Queexchthonic murmurings 15:06, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to think of it as the "Yes, we still hate blind people" act. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:13, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't know, here in the continent 5€ bills get dirty and worn fast enough due to the constant changing of hands, I only can imagine how worse it would be with 1€ and 2€ bills. I personally think metal is better for small denomination currency, but of course each one has his preferences. (talk) 13:50, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
coins were an issue in Australia. I normally carried 20 dollars or so in bills in my wallet. Suddenly I had to carry maybe 15 coins for small purchases or use $5 bills for everything and collect a lot of change. coin Purses for men was a small trend that went nowhere. Hamster (talk) 14:46, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

The Daily Show with Trevor Noah[edit]

So... any thoughts on Trevor Noah replacing Jon Stewart? I think he's good, but I would have preferred Samantha Bee or Aasif Mandvi to take the helm. Then, Jon Stewart is absolutely a tough act to follow, considering his accomplishments. Dwbaker994 (talk) 19:14, 30 March 2015 (UTC)— Unsigned, by: ‎Dwbaker994 / talk / contribs The world is not enough.

Sign your posts with four tildes, please ~~~~. And... I'm gonna be terrible and say that Stewart is a mediocre actor, but a great writer. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:43, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
What's terrible about that? Comedians don't need to be good actors or good writers, so you basically just gave him a compliment. (talk) 19:29, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand how he got the gig. He's only been on The Daily Show since December 2014!?! I would've thought one of the longer running contributes would get the gig. Haven't watched The Daily Show in a while so I never even heard of this guy before today. Saw a clip of him today and he seems OK. (talk) 21:14, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Honestly, I originally expected John Oliver to get the job, but he went his own way with Last Week Tonight. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 03:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Aaaaaaaaaand people already want him fired.[edit]

It's another sign that we live in the digital age and ANYTHING and EVERYTHING you post on social media can haunt you in the future. People have dug up old tweets of his with sexist, racist, and anti-atheist jokes, and there are calls for him to not get the job because he is such a "giant dope".

Reddit isn't up in arms about this yet, although there are grumblings in /r/Atheism and one of his tweets hit frontpage on /r/FatPeopleHate. Tumblr's #Trevor_Noah tag is ostensibly split between "This witch-hunt is stupid and/or highlights double standards and/or is unfair," and "Fuck that prick, Jessica Williams should've gotten it."

Personally, I still stand behind the guy. Nobody's perfect, after all. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 03:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I for one cannot wait to see the Tweets, Facebook updates and blog posts from both the left and the right when a black guy looses his job in a racism scandal. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 04:13, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Honestly, I have no qualms against the guy, but if I had to pick between him and Jessica Williams, then yeah I'd go with the latter. (talk) 04:49, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
I too was rooting for Williams, but I assume that the people in charge know what they're doing. And historically, all he has to do is be better than Kilbourn. Yeah, the witch-hunt is stupid. People who treat jokes about race or gender sex like cartoons of Muhammad need a session in the cucking stool. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 14:11, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Westminster paedophile ring[edit]

I'm wondering if we're gonna need a page on this soon. It's getting popular in British newspapers, and evidence suggests a major coverup going as far as Prime Minister Thatcher being notified of it (and the documents mysteriously disappearing). The benefits include: an on-mission list of corrupt politicians, and the chance to be real snarky at any MP real big on "family" values. The problems faced are false leads (there was that case a few years back where the police had a man accuse the wrong ex-politician) and newspapers milking stories considerably (take note of the Enoch Powell stuff - more focus is given to "he might have been a Satanist" than "he might have been a child rapist") as part of a Moral Panic.-- Forerunner (talk) 20:35, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

This seems like one of those things that you could only make a reasonable article about after the dust has settled, and the establishment shifted its narrative from 'nothing to see here' to 'they were always a bit iffy and anyway none of them are still around'. Given how long the scandal's been brewing, that could be years away. Queexchthonic murmurings 09:51, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
How about an article that focuses on the timely order of the revelations, actions and official statements resp. the lack thereof? So as to have some sort of protocol, which could later allow to check any narrative that may be told. In general I agree that this story is significant enough, plus it fits the purposes of RW (authoritarianism/monitoring the media). --Sophophobe (talk) 21:29, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
If nothing else, a background providing historical complaints, etc. Also, what we already know of when the newest revelations and papers were uncovered. AyzmoCheers 21:44, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
A timeline, then, with minimal analysis for now? AFAIR, Gamergate is the only timeline article RW currently has, and has got a lot of natter back and forth about brevity, missionality and so forth, but I'd certianly find it handy to have a ready reference for the ins and outs, with references. Queexchthonic murmurings 12:10, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
anything written would need to be fully sourced and made clear of fact vs allegation Hamster (talk) 14:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
And all references to government pages should be made through archive.org or the like. Wouldn't be the first time an official statement gets tampered with when a contradiction shows up. --Sophophobe (talk) 16:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Snowden video[edit]

"The uploader has not made this video available in your country." So where can I see it? Or preferably, read it? BicyclewheelModerator 10:00, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Here's a collection of news stories that Google decided were about the video. Hopefully one of them will help. -Soviet Hologram God (talk) 14:16, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Oddly, that link doesn't show any results for me. (talk) 08:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Basically Snowden said "nobody cares that the NSA knows your secrets, but people do care that the NSA have copies of your dick pics." BicyclewheelModerator 08:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
You know what we're going to get out of this? Some sort of "Public Encroachment on Nude Image by Survelience Act" that specifically addresses John Oliver's rather clever take-down of the concept, while not doing anything about stuff that matters. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 14:46, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Tennessee Bill Allows Counselors to Reject LGBT Students[edit]

For the people wondering why this entry is getting voted down, check the date. The story is from 2013; it's over two years old. --OverworldTheme (talk) 14:07, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Hillary for President[edit]

OK - I'll bite...what is it that is "truly bizarre" about this?? --Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 23:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely nothing. It's like a freak circus advertising their two-eyed, one-nosed man. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 23:38, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Two eyes?!? Only one nose? O_O (talk) 00:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Hillary is running for President? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztVMib1T4T4 --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 18:00, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

EmDrive warp field[edit]

I posted this item:

Lasers fired through the EmDrive's resonance chamber show variances consistent with a warp field, including travelling faster than the speed of light.

It was removed. I should have seen that coming, but I think this topic deserves more discussion. [http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.1860 — Unsigned, by: ‎HomoHeisenbergensis / talk / contribs

Look, buddy. It's not the subject that's the problem. It's the site. Look at every other article they have. "Why it's so hard to be a UFO photographer like me", "How everyone is mind controlling the sheep", I'm big into the future of space travel. But I'm not taking my news about it from a conspiracy site. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:23, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't look like there are any other websites reporting this. Would you rather I linked to the forum thread filled with jargon, or a reddit discussion? HomoHeisenbergensis (talk) 16:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
If your only sources are a forum and a conspiracy site, you might want to reconsider the accuracy of what you're seeing reported. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:50, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
A forum thread with the scientists themselves who are working on this drive. HomoHeisenbergensis (talk) 19:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
If it's on the internet it must be true... -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 18:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Compulsory balloting[edit]

Is the shit. First, how's this insignificant? How are "only" 8 senate seats out of 246 studied (3%) insignificant? How is reducing the share of extremists and increasing the share of moderates (who vote at lower rates) insignificant? How is 95% turnout versus 50% turnout insignificant in terms of political engagement? Second, there's no really justified reason not to compel balloting. FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 23:51, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Compelling the disinterested and apathetic to vote isn't necessarily a good idea. For one thing, it could compel them to vote against you. Really Obama, way to give the small-government Republicans something to rile up against. It's not like mandatory voting is something that's ever gonna see the light of day in the US anyway. (talk) 00:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Not when so many politicians have a vested interest in discouraging the Masses from voting so they can focus laser-like on pandering to the single-issue loons. --Gulik (talk) 05:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
People who only bother to vote when they're forced to are probably more likely to be swayed by single-issue rhetoric than the average voter is. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 06:09, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Similar issue in the UK. I've seen a lot of non-voters decide that if they had to, they'd vote UKip since that's the only one they know of (no idea the coalition exists, who the Prime Minister is or the difference between parties) and they're always on TV. So they'd be voting for a party that doesn't represent their economic demograph just because some frog-faced guy blames the deficit on earthquake appeals.-- Forerunner (talk) 09:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Problem is, Weaseloid and Forerunner's problems don't seem to occur -- most people, when forced to vote, take time to make it worth it. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ﹐ Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 19:52, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
What on earth are you basing that on? ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Wishful thinking is my guess. I live in a country where voting is mandatory and I can tell you most people here vote with shit reasons. (talk) 20:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Would that be Australia, land of the Mad Monk? BicyclewheelModerator 20:31, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Nah, just a small European country. Though, quite similarly, the right-wing parties did prominently win our recent elections. Now with their (anti-)social reforms taking shape, lotsa people are starting to regret their votes. Not like that actually stops the politicians from doing as they like though. (talk) 21:13, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
One way to look at it is this: Australia has had compulsory voting since 1924, with average national participation always above 90%. Before, participation was about 60% [1]. If those 30% were truly stupid and/or swayable, then you'd expect some climactic shift in Australian politics. It didn't happen. Politics after '24 was largely the same as before. Realistically, I think that this is because most voluntary voters are ignorant and/or swayable, and compelled voters are only slightly more so. Further, Australians are slightly above Americans in terms of how many know their member of Congress [2]. So, if anything, being compelled to vote might increase interest in the political process. FuzzyDogPotato (talk/stalk) 21:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

If I do not like any of the candidates I do not see much point in being forced to come in to spoil my ballot paper AMassiveGay (talk) 21:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

nor do I find it pleasing to validate whatever bunch of cunts get in with high turnoutAMassiveGay (talk) 21:09, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
also, as someone currently disenfranchised by my less than official living arrangements, am I going to be criminalised for being poor? AMassiveGay (talk) 21:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Possibly! Being poor is a conscious choice after all. (talk) 21:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
It's really hard to effect cultural change with a legislative change. The problem is a disengaged and politically alienated electorate. Forcing people to vote won't make them any less alienated. Also, I would rather have heard Obama make a strong statement on restrictive and unnecessary voter ID laws and blatantly partisan redistricting than something as asinine as mandatory voting. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 21:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
@AMG: Then vote "none of the above", and validate nobody. Why would mandatory balloting change how living arrangements affect voting?
@AH: If anything, the compelled voters appear slightly more politically active. And yes, I'd prefer attacking ID laws, but every bit helps. FuzzyDogPotato (talk/stalk) 21:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
To the former; What makes you think there would be such an option?
To the latter, and I hope Weaseloid won't mind me reusing his question; "What on earth are you basing that on?" (talk) 21:51, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Australia provides a none of the above option; it's not necessarily part of compulsory voting, but seems essential to me.
See my above post. Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 21:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I fail to see why you'd attribute the fact that Australians are slightly above Americans in terms of how many know their member of Congress to the fact they have mandatory voting. I'd say correlation does not equal causation, but I haven't even seen any strong indication that these two are correlated in the way you say they are. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc maybe? (talk) 22:24, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
They aren't necessarily correlated. My point is, instead, that compulsory voting hasn't reduced Australia's votership to a pile of ignorance; it's comparable to the U.S. FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 22:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
If it's comparable to the US, I'd say "a pile of ignorance" would be a fairly accurate description. (talk) 22:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
And yet neither is the fault of compulsory voting, then. FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 22:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
fuzzy, I can just as easily vote 'none of the above' by staying at home and not voting without the added cost and bureaucracy of coercing me to vote. My point about my living arrangements is that I cannot register to vote without potentially getting evicted as I should not officially living where I do. Forcing me to vote could make me homeless. This is quite apart from the fact that if I have the right not to vote just as much as I have the right to vote. Why should I have my right not to engage in a political system that does absolutely nothing for me taken away from me for some nebulous idea that I might become more engaged in said rotten system? It is up to parties who want vote to convince me to engage not the other way round. Why would these parties even bother to engage those out side of their core support when all they would have to is to be the least shit option? Being forced to vote for the least shit option hardly seems like a shining beacon of democracy. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:13, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
And yet that's what democracy usually amounts to these days. :/
(When people aren't voting for the most shit option, of course.) (talk) 03:40, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

You know I always used to like RationalWiki for being on the anti-authoritarian left but more and more, I'm getting the impression that that's a contradiction in terms. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 14:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Voting is mandatory in Belgium and in the end most people show up and few complain about it. There are significant spoilt ballots but in general their votes are spread over numerous parties with no party remotely approaching 30%. Most parties represent rather specific interests (enviromentalism or redistribution of money or fiscal convervatism or flemish separatism or moerate-marxim ...) and coalitions must include several parties meaning an enormous amount of negotiation, compromise and consensus is necesary. Imagine that...a political system where cooperation and the representation of a broad specturm of interests are met and adressed. But no ... we must avoid the horror of big government forcing people to vote! (talk) 00:03, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

How is it tyranny if a government makes it mandatory for you to tell it what it should do? It's not like you have to vote for a certain party or any party for that matter. Complaining about the government and not voting is just petty. MassiveGay, you either want a benevolent dictatorship or you're an anarchist because you're certainty not a fan of Democracy. You don't wait for your democracy to get better before you vote, you have to participate to make it better. As much as I don't like them, Tea party activists don't just sit at the computer and complain about the government, they went out and voted and it worked. And LetThemEatCake, I don't know what you're talking about. If we aren't right wing enough for you, there are plenty of other places you can go besides here. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Did anyone say it was tyranny? WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:57, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Nothing to do with right-wing or left-wing. I've just realised that it's best to stick to the scientific articles around here as politically speaking RationalWiki has become swamped by the worst of Salon readers and Tumblr SJWs among other such low-life left-wing fascists. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 00:45, 30 May 2015 (UTC
Fear The All-Powerful SJW's Who Don't Use Their Power To Change Society!!1! Really, dude, you seem to be making a Psychological projection (talk) 14:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

15-year old Holocaust denier.[edit]

I'd rather not see us participate in the public shaming of a child who did something stupid. If the story were about the situation and focused on the school without naming the kid, that might be one thing, but given that it links to a video she made, and has her name, location and a photo of her, I really think the article (...actually, more of a blog post than a legit journalistic article) goes beyond reporting on a shitty situation to become something of an attack. She is a child. Leave her to make her mistakes. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 00:06, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

For all we know, the report was submitted on April 1st...CorruptUser (talk) 00:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Since the article dates from May 2013, it shouldn't be here anyway. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 00:44, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Good post! - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 15:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Edgelords will be edgy at that age. Delete it.--Madman (talk) 01:46, 19 April 2015 (UTC)The Madman
Ugh. In future can we not WIGO stupid things juniors say? Reason one: we all said stupid stuff when we were fifteen, because we haven't finished learning yet. Reason two: attacking minors on the internet should be beneath us. BicyclewheelModerator 15:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't posting on the internet when I was 15, thank god. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:53, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
If I'd said something like that when I was 15 I would have deserved a public shaming. Teenagers aren't that stupid. Thanos6 (talk) 02:31, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
No, you're right. Every human being, especially younger ones, is equally intelligent and equally wise and can equally well see the consequences of their actions. All 6 billion of us are just as smart as you. And you are so very, very smart. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 03:35, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
7 billion. --Miekal 03:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
If teenage recklessness was as bad as you're making it out to be, hardly anyone would make it to adulthood. Thanos6 (talk) 10:47, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
You're talking shit. Stop it. WéáśéĺóíďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 10:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Bad advertisement for moderate Islam?[edit]

Why would a loony principal of an Islamic school indicate anything about moderate Islam? He thinks ISIS is a plot by the West to secure oil for crying out loud. >.< If this was a principal of a Christian school, people would be looking at the individual and saying he's nuts, not trying to conclude anything about the general religion—let alone specifically the moderate version of it—from it. (talk) 10:12, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Bump bump this is true. PacWalker 14:52, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Changed the headline. Though arguably the "Turns out non-violent garden-variety loons can be found among Western Muslims too" isn't by any means surprising, so that could be easily left out. (talk) 18:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
A bit slow reading this sorry - FYI I have no problem wth the change - it's much more accurate. I'm just not very imaginitive with my prose!!--Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 21:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

"Racism kills a lot of people." Blatantly misleading title....[edit]

The study shows that black mortality is higher in areas with higher racism, that is hardly proof that racism is the reason why there is higher mortality. Areas with higher racism tend to have lower education and with lower education there is higher black on black crime as well. Correlation does not equal causation. Note: I am NOT saying that people are not killed by racism, just that the title is misleading the conclusion. NolanSyKinsley (talk) 01:21, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Nuh uh. They showed the correlations with socioeconomics(including every reasonable confounding variables), and surprise surprise, it lacks anywhere near the same correlative strength. Also the measure wasn't "black mortality rates" it was "gap in mortality rates between whites and blacks". So... next time, read the whole paper. Look at the crosstabs. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 13:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Nigel Farage quote[edit]

I've noticed something alarming about Nigel Farage's quote, shown in the Guardian: "The Labour vote is incredibly soft. It's like a rotten window pane; all you have to do is push and the whole thing caves in," I think it's eerily close to the popular Adolf Hitler quote about Stalingrad: "we have only to kick in the door and the whole rotten structure will come crashing down." Does anyone know where these two men got the quote idea from - a book? It's just pretty weird someone saying he's not racist would say something similar to a well-known Hitler quote.-- Forerunner (talk) 18:17, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

That may be just a coincidence or ignorance about the source of the quote.--Arisboch (talk) 18:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Could just be confirmation bias, I guess. We expect him to say something borderline offensive; especially since he's apparently read and approved his Manifesto this time.-- Forerunner (talk) 18:29, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm inclined to say that they're merely coincidentally using the same (not too zany) metaphor for the same(ish) idea, but eh who cares? He is as he is, Godwin or no Godwin. PacWalker 18:51, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Thirty-Meter Telescope[edit]

There's obviously a lot to be said about supporting Hawaiian autonomy, to what extent "holy sites" should be protected and whether we really need more ground-based telescopes.

But my question is this: Couldn't the scientists come up with a better name? Seriously, it's like they want the common people to hate this just for its utterly boring name. (talk) 02:18, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Dont forget the Very Large Array among other very generic telescope names Bubba41102 Taste the shortness` 02:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
There is apparently an observatory named after rapper ice cube which is marginally more interesting Bubba41102 Taste the shortness` 03:00, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Very Large Array... At this point they're just parodying their own naming conventions, aren't they? >.< (talk) 03:46, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
They wanted to use the word "бля" :D--Arisboch (talk) 03:51, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, Very Large is already taken, as is Extremely Large, and it's not nearly big enough to be called Overwhelmingly Large, much less Oppressively Colossal. Compro01 (talk) 07:39, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
o________o (talk) 09:29, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

We British[edit]

Can kill people as we arrest them. Admitedly we don't kill quite so many and we tend to be slightly more colour neutral in the people our police kill, although of course not entirely colour neutral I acknowledege. Oldusgitus (talk) 11:05, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Two shot dead after they open fire at Mohammed cartoon event in Texas[edit]

This article is so poorly edited how is it not in Clogs? More of a comment about the quality of CNN "reporting" (6.. 6? 6! 6!?@# flipping contributors for an ~700 word article).. Additional warning: Geert Wilders and Pamela Geller have been summoned. Condescendingwhat (talk) 10:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Because CNN is generally regarded as a major news outlet, not a crazy blog. I don't call the shots, I just fire 'em. PacWalker 10:51, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Holy shit that's a really unfortunate wording on my part. My bad. PacWalker 11:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Dear piece of shit terror sympathizers: the culprits were rightfully killed by law enforcement for attempting a terrorist act against people asserting their constitutional rights. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 00:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Did anyone say otherwise here? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 01:00, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Dear ConservapediaEditor, I don't get how it went from - CNN writing a nonsensical and poorly edited article about a planned attack and subsequent killing of 2 individuals with POSSIBLE(at the time only guesses at) terrorist connections with redundant statements in the article to you making a "piece of shit terror sympathizers" blanket statement.. the only terror-able thing here is your reading comprehension and basic human decency. Please go away or learn how to play nice with others. Have a lovely day. Condescendingwhat (talk) 16:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
The incident that happened was 0.5 miles from my parents home. Save your self righteous indignations. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 05:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
The geographic proximity of the incident to your family does not justify you calling people "terror sympathizers" for no good reason. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 14:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
In America, we have the 1st Amendment, that some terrorists and terror sympathizers don't appreciate. I did not call you a terror sympathizer, but anyone who says Gellar should not be allowed to draw Mohammed is a terror sympathizer. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 05:51, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Does anyone else think "Jesus with erection" belongs right here in this conversation?— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

The new defense spending bill will kill the Joint Improvised-Threat Defeat Agency[edit]

1. That WP link don't work. 2. Why is this important? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 20:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I think it is just generally interesting that with all the talk about sending soldiers against DAESH we will be cutting the agency responsible for fighting IEDs. I mean we spend billions of 'national security' and this is the cut Congress decides to make.--Owlman (talk) 20:42, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
That makes sense. Seeing as sending soldiers to fight Saddam pretty much created DAESH, I am really eager to see the fresh nightmare that will arise from sending soldiers to fight DAESH. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 21:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Well of course I can't (and don't want to) imagine what will come from the abyss if we attack them. I think that at that point they will attack the Saudis which if we step foot in there then we will become the crusaders DAESH wants us to be. I also fear, based on the Drone Papers, that the Afghan Taliban will join DAESH since our attacks led Al-Shabaab to join Al-Qaeda.--Owlman (talk) 21:11, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
RE: DAESH in Afghanistan, I'm looking forward to watching this on Tuesday... Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 21:17, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Depends on whom you ask. Some say, that the US attacks will lead to Al-Shabaab joining history and I doubt, that the Taliban would want the ISIS to play in their sandbox. All the Islamists see the US as so-called crusaders anyway (all the while they're leading a crusade).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 21:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up, AH, I will be watching this as soon as this comes out. And I agree, Arisboch, but the Saudis have peddle this anti-Shia and Wahhabi propaganda and now that DAESH sees them as takfir the Saudis have shit the bed. The main reason that Daesh could exploit US forces in Saudi Arabia would be based on the view that we are coming for Mecca and that this is the apocalypse.--Owlman (talk) 21:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
US troops in Mecca? What for and does that exist anywhere except in the sick minds and propaganda of the DAESH?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 21:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Well, we had troops in Saudi Arabia for almost 15 years, which was among the grievances of OBL and AQ. George W pulled 'em out.---Mona- (talk) 22:36, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Of course there aren't any and probably never will be, but that is what DAESH would use a propaganda if US did fight them in Saudi Arabia.--Owlman (talk) 21:43, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
But what would be the better course: help the Saudis or not, risking, that one Islamist shithole is turned into a worse Islamist shithole or is there a plan C?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 22:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
I am not sure. I would lean to say help the Saudis with a regional force, the GCC, along with the UN. I am not trying to disagree with you I am just pointing out that that is what DAESH wants us to do.--Owlman (talk) 23:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
They see us as crusaders, but the Western word is "imperialists." They are leading their own counter-crusade which doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell.---Mona- (talk) 22:39, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Also Daesh could always try to get the Shias to revolt by killing many of them, which they have working on. This would cause the Saudis to crackdown on them and lead to Iran puching for intervention whether through arming them or directly attacking them.--Owlman (talk) 21:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Syrian Refugee Crisis Idiocy[edit]

So the governors and elected leaders of 24 states, including my own, have all simultaneously declared they will not accept any Syrian refugees. It fills me with shame to say I am an American. This kind of inhumane, barbaric xenophobia has no place in a modern liberal democracy where all people are treated equally. Of course, it is illegal for the states to say they won't accept refugees under the 1980 Refugee Act, but it seems Republicans don't care about the law passed by a democratically-elected legislature, only their personal opinion. The fact that any elected official in a republic like America would be willingly to openly state that they do not want to provide care and assistance to some of the most oppressed and war-battered people in the world sickens my soul and dampens my heart. The coldness and apathy these Republicans have shown towards fellow humans in desperate need of shelter and food only further confirms my political views. I call for everyone to vote against all of these officials to show that the people will not respond kindly to this kind of barbarity. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:45, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm still surprised this mess didn't happen with the Lebanese diaspora in the 70s. Then again, the Lebanese were much wealthier than the average Syrian. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Star of David.png as much fun as requiring a double mastectomy 02:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Republicans who virtually all supported the war in Iraq which directly cleared the way for, and created ISIS. The same ISIS the Syrian refugees are fleeing. We birthed ISIS, and now as the fine "Christian nation" so many claim us to be, we turn away the victims of our monster.---Mona- (talk) 03:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Fellow ashamed US citizen here. Didn't take the GOP long to use Paris to springboard back onto the saddle of bigotry. It's sad that I wasn't even surprised to find Republican presidential nominees demonizing Syrian/middle eastern refugees and demanding closed borders less than 6 hours after the attacks. Yet more exploitation of tragedy to peddle racism and xenophobia. (talk) 16:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
No politician can resist from using tragedies as munition for propaganda, no matter, if s/he's left, right or center!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 16:21, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

The US, if anything, has made the Syrian War worse by flooding the region with guns and missiles. I thought America was supposed to oppose violence in the Middle-East? Instead, the US has made the situation worse by giving guns to armed Islamists in the Middle-East! And yet Americans are not even willing to own up to solve a refugee crisis that they themselves caused and exacerbated! Pbfreespace3 (talk) 03:12, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

What? We only give a shit about violence when the guys doing it aren't on our side. You know we armed Osama when he was fighting the Rooskies, right? --Ymir (talk) 20:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Osama was not armed by the US.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 18:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
What was it that endeared ethnic Albanians to America, then? While that may be true in many cases, asserting that the U.S. has never tried to do the right thing ever is a bit much. It's not as if they were just piling on at the end, either, the rest of Europe refused to do a goddamn thing to stop it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)