User talk:Marlow

What is going on? World Blogs Clogs Elections The Bar (talk) (talk) (talk) (talk) (hic) Welcome to RationalWiki, Marlow! Check out our guide for newcomers and our community standards! Tell us how you found RationalWiki here! If you are interested in contributing: Read what our articles are intended to be Check out the to-do list See our help page and Wikipedia's formatting cheatsheet If writing a new article, consider writing up a draft And most importantly: Pull up a goat and have some fun!

Hi. Blue (is useful) 20:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome. I'm a long time lurker and I look forward to contributing. --Marlow (talk) 20:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Sysop

It has come to my attention that you are littering red exclamation points everywhere.

Well, not anymore, 'cause you're a sysop now! Here's your bucket, mop, and instruction manual. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 01:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I already have a job mopping floors at the TOW, but I'm sure I'll find something to do here to. --Marlow (talk) 21:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Vandalizing the Quantum Mind page

You replaced substantive content on the Quantum Consciousness page with childish silliness which dos not serve to educate about then position itself. Don't do that please. Jfraatz (talk) 17:12, 28 August 2013 (UTC)Jfraatz

Kan u rite good?

See you were working on communism. The whole thing is a mess, writing wise. Feel free to tear it down and build it up again. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 00:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd love to, if I had the time, but I'll probably chip away at it a bit anyway. It's a pretty sorry article that presents communism from an ignorant perspective. --Marlow (talk) 00:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

We live as we dream - alone.

Is it good or bad that I thought of The Gang of Four instead of Joseph Conrad? Sophie^Wilder 19:18, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Probably not a bad thing, though Conrad's a bad ass. I've never been a big fan of post punk, but to each his/her own right. Kevin Martin is fast becoming one of my favorite internet personalities. --Marlow (talk) 20:21, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

He's rather fun, isn't he? Sophie^Wilder 22:57, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Warping the meaning of statistics

http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Rape_culture&curid=149140&diff=1271496&oldid=1271490

I think that's probably fair enough, and at least you gave a reason, which I appreciate. I am still curious, though. What is the exact nature of this warping?

The statistics do indicate that pretty much the same number of men reported "made to penetrate" as women reporting "raped" over the same 12 month period. Whether that means anything I am not confident to say myself, but I wouldn't mind hearing everybody's take on this, including yours. Please. Nullahnung (talk) 23:18, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd just be cautious with people using original research with that study. Earlier this year the MRAs were using it to say that 40% of rapists were women (not 40% of women are rapists as I mistyped in the edit summary) by using a similar type of interpolation. The CDC actually responded to it, check it out [1]. --Marlow (talk) 23:24, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

That was very helpful, thank you.

It appears that there are a number of statistical intricacies that need to be considered which a direct comparison between the stats in question would oversimplify.

I'm also not sure about the whole "made-to-penetrate is completely the same as rape" thing. Nullahnung (talk) 23:39, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

That statistic has become a rallying point for MRAs making all sorts of claims, mostly to the effect of "hah, look! It's really the women who are the rapists and the men who are the victims". Aside from that stupidity, it looks a bit of a rogue figure anyway: when you compare lifetime and last-twelve-months figures for "made to penetrate" and contrast with other sexual violence (like rape, which the report doesn't actually classify as the same thing) for men or women, they don't seem to add up well. Either this is happening disproportionately to the same men or we simply don't have enough background info about this statistic to draw meaningful conclusions (let alone butthead conclusions about blaming the victim as"wanting it"). Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:21, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Gun safety

Since you doubt my responsibility, I'll explain something I do.

I keep a lock through the action at any time I'm not fucking using it. Also, every single time someone hands me a gun, I open and check the chamber. Every fucking time. I don't care if someone else checked, or if I had just held it before, every time. Also my friend from the Soviet Union deliberately started an OCD habit of checking the chamber while holding guns. –Inquisitor Sasha (talk) 05:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

RE: Blood Meridian

To be honest im not really qualified to give a proper analysis of the gnostic themes of the book, but one running theme I found throughout was that while the Kid acted according to whomever was around him (i.e. his time in Glanton's gang when he went along with their crimes without objection) he still gravitated towards the "more moral" of its members (i.e. Toadvine and Tobin who stand in clear opposition to the Judge despite their complicity in the gang's crimes), and when travelling alone near the end he makes some attempt at altruistic behaviour when he sees what he thinks is an old lady in need of help. His "clemency for the heathen" was his innate refusal/inability to become totally consumed by the utter lack of humanity/morality the Judge represents even when he was so deeply involved in the gang's crimes. He is indeed along for the ride but when stripped of the malign influences of the gang, he still shows a willing rejection of the Judge's system of morality despite all he had gone through and seen, and that marks him as something to be destroyed by the Judge.....at least thats how I see it. Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 19:03, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Sounds about right. That's a good point that it's the Kid's association with Tobin, who acts almost like a conscious perched on the Kid's shoulder, sometimes heeded and sometimes not, that marks the Kid out in the Judge's eye. That section with the old lady is pretty telling to the overall sentiment of the book. He doesn't just try to help her. He basically tells her his life story, almost a confession and the only time the Kid ever says anything of any length, only to find her to be a tried up husk. Nobody's listening. Another part that I think is key regarding the Kid's internal state is when he takes shelter in the hermit's hut towards the beginning. The kid says he can imagine a better world and the hermit asks if he can make it so; to which the kid replies, no. The Judge isn't in the business of imagining or seeking a more perfect world, he's in the business of dominating this one, a key difference. --Marlow (talk) 18:50, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi

Hi. I may have missed something but could you explain your reversion and block of User:Jahiliyyah ? Cheers.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 19:58, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

The guy has been popping up under various names spouting the same lame crap with potty-mouthed vituperation in edit summaries. Not worth your time, Bob. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 20:03, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) What Sprocket said. Nothing says crackpot like "My political views are White Nationalist", "Rothschild-financed rats", "Zionist axis of evil", "Marx was an agent of the Rothschilds", and so on. The Saloon bar is a gathering place for RWians and anyone else interested in non-article-related discussion, not for drive-by cranks. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 20:07, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

The thing is that we do have community standards. Blocking is described here. I am simply concerned that there seems to be a growing tendency to simply ignore things that we once thought long and hard about and go with somebody's gut reaction.

I've got no problem if we review our codes and then follow them - but I get uneasy when I see revisions and blocks which are clearly outside the scope of what was originally intended.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 20:11, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I would love to see hate speech as a codified reason to block a user. I would hate to go through the wikidrama that would precede the implementation of such a policy. Father Vivian O'Blivion (talk) 20:25, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

What a killjoy. --|₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{It's like human misery in video game form} 20:41, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

[EC] Difference between letter of the law, and its spirit, seems to apply here. Also, the ease of getting forgiveness vs. permission thing, when dealing promptly with obvious disruption. IMO, the "contributions" of Andrew Millstone / Cbrowns22212 / Nisroch / Ixchel / Clythne of Yllbaton / Jahiliyyah and some IP anons in an identical vein have been handled appropriately by several non-flaky sysops acting collaboratively in good faith, community standards notwithstanding. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 20:45, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not entirety sure that it would be so difficult to obtain a consensus decision on such things. I just remember the time when blocks and reverts on people who we disagreed with or were generally considered disruptive were considered to be anathema. But if I'm in a minority of one then so be it. I shall be alone in my passive-aggressive sorrow. :-) --Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 20:57, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

"This is not a sex ed pamphlet"

What is it, then? A lacked version of Wikipedia, where articles consist only of 9% of what is already there on WP and nothing else? Or is it a totally different wiki project, where we fail miserably at being rational? Please answer this question. Loc (talk) 16:36, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Our purpose here at RationalWiki includes:

1. Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement;
2. Documenting the full range of crank ideas;
3. Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism;
4. Analysis and criticism of how these subjects are handled in the media.

We welcome contributors, and encourage those who disagree with us to register and engage in constructive dialogue.

We have 8,048 articles for your enjoyment.

We generally don't operate as a service to help people think about their sexuality. --Marlow (talk) 16:56, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Bullshit category

You're probably right about the PUA page, but "look at what else is in the category" is not persuasive. See the category talk page. Having looked at some of the category items themselves, I'm tempted to make a project of combing through it to see what really fits, and what doesn't. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 22:35, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Bullshit is very a nebulous category so I was going with how it seemed to be defined by its content. Our article on bullshit defines it as deliberate obfuscation, which I might agree could be a stretch to apply to PUA in general. I think a lot of its practitioners are probably fairly sincere in their belief regarding its efficacy. On the other hand a lot of the promoters, especially those involved in paid class etc., are probably pretty cynical. --Marlow (talk) 22:44, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I keep a copy of Harry Frankfurt's little book in my workshop. My tendency would be to hew pretty close to his definition, but nobody should hold their breath while I get around to weeding out the category. My thinking on how it applies to the PUA page pretty much echoes what you just said here. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 23:09, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Internet people.

In this saloon bar discussion, you brought up a great point. I'd love to see an expanded essay, but that's your call, not mine. Either way, I want to quote this for use elsewhere, may I?

Also, my nickname in high school was Marlow, because I talked so much. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 13:40, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Quote away. It's not the most cogent piece of text I've ever written, but there are definitely some ideas in there. I think there's two main concepts to what I was saying: the idea that anti-state (anti-corporate too for the same reason) ideology is on the rise among middle class white men as they see the state going against their immediate interests as it promotes multiculturalism and second the emergence of paranoid conspiracy theories as explanations for the white middle class male's lack of success in comparison to what they feel they are entitled. There's a relationship between these ideas, but I'm not exactly sure how they're connected. There's something postindustrial about it all, the death rattle of the manufacturing class or something. On the topic of Jewish conspiracies, there was some guy here yesterday trying to add stuff to Racial realism along the lines of the "the racist Jews are trying to dilute the white race with mud people by promoting multiculturalism." I think that that fear is ultimately at the bottom of most conspiracies. It would be great to expand on the ideas at some point, but I've never been much of a writer. As for Marlow, do you mean because Marlow narrates the whole story of Heart of Darkness in one sitting while waiting for the tide? I've never thought of him as blabber mouth, but you might be on to something... --Marlow (talk) 16:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

That move?

Loved it! MarmotHead (talk) 01:32, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Glad you liked it. Although I'm beginning to get the sense that this person is profoundly disturbed. His persistence, to a pathological level, in engaging in a place in which he is obviously not welcome combined with his admitted pedophilia is seriously troubling. It's the "it doesn't matter what you want, I'm right so I get what I want" mentality. I sure hope he's a troll. --Marlow (talk) 16:48, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Delayed response: that mentality you mention was obvious and a big problem. I wish he were just a troll, but it seems to not be the case. He did trigger a little science-thought in me which I'm trying (in a public forum) to reconcile with the rest of the really repulsive stuff. Ugh! MarmotHead (talk) 17:43, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Peer editing

Can you help me go over proofread my edits to make sure there no grammatical errors, citation errors, and that my writing are not incoherence in my recent contribution? Thanks. --Daniiieeeel (talk) 23:05, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Now heading off for dinner, good night. --Daniiieeeel (talk) 23:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Enjoy your dinner. Looks fine to me after a quick glance. The only issue I have might be the court document being hosted on blogspot we want this to be airtight so a more reputable link might be better. There are plenty of lawyers here who could probably answer that question better than me. --Marlow (talk) 23:30, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Objective Morality

Restore my content. Your position is reality hostile. Without science based objective morality there is no such thing are objective morality. You might as well talk the whole page down because without science there is no answer to the question. And without science based objective morality the religious people win. ^{— Unsigned, by: Mperkel / talk / contribs}

I'm sorry but science does not offer moral objectivity. What kind of experiment would you propose to prove objectively that murder is "wrong"? Science is a tool for discerning what is not with what ought to be. You seem to be struggling with the distinction between relative morality and absolute morality; morality can exist without being objective or absolute. In fact belief in absolute morality is very rare among atheists in my experience. You might want to read our page on morality in general. I can also recommend some interesting books if your curious about looking deeper into the topic. --Marlow (talk) 00:47, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate is "nominally not sexist."

How so? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 16:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

"Actually it's about ethics in video game journalism." Gamergate's outward message is that it isn't about attacking women. The reality, of course, is different. The idea that Gamergate experiences a stopped clock moment by occasionally appearing to not be transphobic is silly because it also makes an effort to appear not to be sexist. Marlow (talk) 16:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I get you. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 16:49, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Also -- "Gamergate has nothing to do with religion" -- I'm sure you're correct, but is it not the case that the young-male-hardcore-antitheist-Richard-Dawkins-wannabe demographic is pretty highly represented in GG culture, or is that just a coincidence of my bizarre Twitter feed? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 17:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, "Hitch-slap" crowd is probably is pretty well represented amongst the gator ranks, but my point is that, at least to my knowledge, atheism is at best demographically incidental to the movement. GamerGate as a movement has never done or said anything regarding atheism. Having a number of members who hold a certain view point doesn't really make for a stopped clock moment in my opinion. Marlow (talk) 20:59, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 23:46, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Rollback...

I have a pretty bad mouse and sometimes clicking becomes double-clicking and other similar things. I didn't intend to roll back your comment, and just wanted to note that. Sorry! - Grant (talk) 19:26, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Cladistics

I'm a new contributor. Is this the talk page for discussing my addition to the Cladistics page that was deleted because it apparently represented a "fringe group"? Finuka 18:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

No, you want Talk:Cladistics. Marlow (talk) 18:47, 23 March 2015 (UTC)