User talk:Reverend Black Percy/Archive7

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 18 May 2019. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, (new)(back)

Rapoport's Rules[edit]

I could've sworn you had a Dennet quote on your page. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 01:14, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

That does sound like something I'd have on there. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:24, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Mom! We Need More Cheetos![edit]

There are two open threads in the basement. Just lettn' ya know. RoninMacbeth (talk) 13:11, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

MFW:
Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:19, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Citations Needed.[edit]

Sorry for the minor conflict on "Men's rights movement" with respect to reference 4. I take it that when a link is dead it is not acceptable to replace it by a citations needed notation? The proper procedure is then what? Report the dead link on the talk page? All the best...Ariel31459 (talk) 22:24, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

It's fine, friend. What I reacted to was a compound of the following four factors:
  1. The apparent sloppiness of the editor before you (and me).
  2. The fact that searching Google for the terms "good mangina project" yields a TON of potentially citable results.
  3. The fact that the MRA page is HIGHLY beset by whitewashing attempts, sealioning and general whataboutery.
  4. While adding a [citation needed] is perfectly excellent for any less contested page, said template is commonly employed by concern trollsespecially when used to blank an existing source, expired or not — in order to cast doubt on the veracity of the article at large.

As such... In this particular case, my dream scenario would be for someone who isn't editing from a laggy smartphone (like myself) to just replace the old link with one of the apparently many candidate links Google may provide. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:20, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I understand. You may have noticed my comment on talk page of "Gender Pay Gap." About one third of the references there are ng. I didn't touch the article for something like the reasons you have listed.Ariel31459 (talk) 00:43, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

vandal binning without warning[edit]

this user took notice to the matter that user @Reverend Black Percy vandal binned this user without any prior warning and this user holds the opinion that all actions of user rights management should be preceded with a warning.FAMAS (Talk) (Contribs) [[1]] [[2]] 06:41, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Smart move trying to vindictively strip me of my user rights. That's how you lose yours, effective immediately. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 08:56, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
The question is: why did he give them back less than a minute later? Christopher (talk) 14:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Actually, it really isn't. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:52, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

FAMAS: Focus your efforts on making one (1!) article, rather than proposing 50 "policy changes" and protesting when we don't enact them. This is a waste of everyone's time. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 15:28, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

in reply to users @Reverend Black Percy, FuzzyCatPotato, RoninMacbeth, and Christopher, this user asserts the fact that this user was testing the sysop systems and this user notes the fact and not opinion that the user reverend black percy acted in bad faith in total ratio in that the user did not bother to ask this user the reason for the removal and immediate reinstatement of the privileges and the user proceeded to block this user with blocked access to own talkpage and proceeded to propagate the lie that this user is attempting to revoke the rights of user reverend black percy, which this user has proven to be a lie and thus now raises the question of what this puts the image of the user into. this user is requesting a restoration of the privileges of this user.FAMAS (Talk) (Contribs) [[3]] [[4]] 12:50, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Hey @Reverend Black Percy Is it possible that FAMAS was acting in good faith despite being dumb? Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 17:12, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
I say let him out of the bin, but don't demote him until he earns it back. RoninMacbeth (talk) 03:22, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
At this stage he's blatantly "testing the sysop systems" in his own words. He's trolling - David Gerard (talk) 12:15, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Bot[edit]

Yeah, I forgot to unset it. Thanks! RoninMacbeth (talk) 16:14, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

No problem, buddy! Th hug.gif All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:44, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Nazism[edit]

This discussion was moved to Talk:Nazism.
Remember to leave an archiving timestamp or this'll stay on your your talk page forever. Christopher (talk) 14:01, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

FAMAS[edit]

What did he do to deserve another block? RoninMacbeth (talk) 22:27, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Starin' at my sandals? That's a paddlin'. (Jokes aside: Fuzzy mistook his own good intentions for good sense and decided to interfere unblock FAMAS prematurely. Facepalm.png) It's OK though, he acted out of love, as do we all. Even nobs. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:43, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
I think that we can all agree we need to keep FAMAS as far down the protection hierarchy as possible, but what happens after his block expires? Since demotion is not a possibility anymore, should this be considered the prelude to a permaban? RoninMacbeth (talk) 15:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm a firm believer in rehabilitation (with a demonstrable will to cooperate being its first step). I also know relentless trolling when I see it. Between these two facts, FAMAS will act to decide his own future for himself. Nobody could — nor has the right to — stop him from doing so. We can only wait and watch him force our hands, regardless of which direction he choses for them (by his own conduct). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:44, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Jim Sterling quote[edit]

I don't like that quote because there's no way to rationalise it: it's basically saying that, if person X is being persecuted, it no longer matters if they're right or wrong. The problem is, that locks out discussion in both directions: according to Jim, not only can I not disagree with Anita, I also can't agree with her. I have to coast around in some weird philosophical neutral gear until Jim decides it's once again time to talk about the merits of her arguments rather than some other thing we for some reason can't talk about at the same time. You can't just declare a line of discussion "invalidated" by something that has nothing to do with it, that's a clear and blatant logical fallacy. The basis of ad hominem being a fallacy is that the argument has nothing to do with the person making it: therefore, other things that happen to that person are, by definition, irrelevant. Nog Bogmire (talk) 12:36, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Sterling meant that GG's actions had basically shifted the debate from "are women represented fairly enough in video games" (which is, admittedly, debatable) to "is it OK for people to send death and rape threats to people you disagree with" (which is fairly clear-cut from a sane perspective). Jim isn't the arbiter of what the discussion is, he merely points out what gamers turned the entire thing into. Watch the video, it's pretty good. RoninMacbeth (talk) 12:51, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I just looked at that video and in that context it makes sense, but the quote doesn't have that context: the extracted portion alone reads very differently to the whole argument. Nog Bogmire (talk) 12:53, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
The first time I saw the quote, I'd never even heard of Jimquisition before. It made sense then. Still, we could add context below the quote, if that helps. RoninMacbeth (talk) 12:55, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
@Nog Well, of course your analysis of such an interpretation is right. But your 'literal' reading of the quote doesn't help Jim's words to achieve their most compatible meaning — in other words, your interpretation lacks charityWikipedia's W.svg. With proper charity (and having watched Jim's video in full context), I'm not reading his statement to mean that 'the discussion is now closed'; I'm reading his statement to mean that concerned cries of "Whoah, whoah , whoah, time out!" in response to the threats to commit mass shootings against venues she'll be speaking at cannot be sidelined with a gator Gish Gallop on how outrageous it is that her videos are factually wrong at points (or something). Like Jim, I'm saying — Oh, I'm sure they are! But everyone's lost their freaking perspective once the appearance of en masse death threats do not acutely redefine what this entire discussion is even about to begin with. And just in terms of outrage, threats of mass shootings are more outrageous than anything she's ever done. Nothing is able to set a new outrage ceiling past that point — it's simple argumentative inflation. Whatever was being talked about before is of less relative value from there on. TL;DR: I think we both agree with Jim's statement when given in context-and-all. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:58, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
See perhaps that's it, I hadn't seen any of his stuff either but I had heard he was a pompous asshole, so read it as a proclamation to the unwashed that the lord Jim has hereby changed the subject. Nog Bogmire (talk) 13:00, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
But just to add, at the same time it needs more context, there's not much point in extracting that portion of the quote if you have to watch more of the video to understand it. Nog Bogmire (talk) 13:03, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, Jim plays a pompous asshole. It's pretty much the show's shtick. So, how about I get to work on context? RoninMacbeth (talk) 13:04, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Sure, I'll return to my usual habit of editing things about the Bible. Nog Bogmire (talk) 13:07, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Draft Community Survey[edit]

I drafted another community survey. Since the first one was controversial, I'd love to hear your thoughts. I won't proceed without community support. Survey draft available here. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 16:27, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the link! Before we even begin, please allow me to ping @David Gerard, ping @Human and ping @Ikanreed (considering your survey seems to present itself as being official to the site). All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:33, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, hadn't gotten to ask all the boardmembers. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 16:53, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
So, on the RWA page, almost every question is a locked binary that often bypasses options like "they're just people, neither good nor bad". ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:12, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
What if you support abortion rights but not animal rights? What if you think the effect immigration has on a country is impossible to calculate, or that it is a net negative for the country but still good because it improves the immigrants' lives? What if you oppose environmental laws for other reasons? Why is "page you spend the most time on" labelled "favourite page" (if you often only go on RW very briefly, the main page could be the one you spend the most time on but it's unlikely to be your favourite)? Why is there favourite and best page? Why is the goat question required? Christopher (talk) 21:23, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the questions.
@Ikanreed I coerced the RWA scale into a set of forced-choice questions, which Pew recommends over agree-disagree questions. (As for the source of the political questions, it's Pew as well.) To make a literal appeal to authority: they are an authority on these matters. What alternative (eg, remove section, change format, etc.) do you suggest?
@Christopher RE: Binary choices: see the Pew bit above.
RE: Favorite Page: Changed to "Most-Visited Page". Also changed several descriptions in that section. Thoughts?
RE: Favorite + Best: It might be interesting if there was a difference between most-visited page and favorite page. Thoughts?
RE: Goat: Are you trying to commit heresy against the High Goat? Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 23:32, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

CGP Grey[edit]

I plan to make a draft for CGP Grey. You think that's a good idea? —Bigljbigl (talk/stalk) 00:31, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

He doesn't deal in bullshit, so no, I wouldn't bother. Linking to more of his videos on various relevant talkpages (and among the External links segment of relevant articles), however? That's the ticket. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:42, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Ok, let's try and be sensible about this[edit]

Ok, first off, please look back through your posts: maybe you didn't intend it, but you did come across as talking down to me. Maybe you were trying to be flippant and silly, I see you're trying to do that now, but that can end up looking dismissive too. So, clean slate, I'm sorry if you are.

Now, regarding formal logic, you did make a mistake here.

Firstly, while "P is P and Q is Q" in the abstract, when transitioning from an actual, real-life statement to your initial formal symbolic model of that statement, you have to model it based on what those things actually are. You can't start with a complete abstraction where a word only has meaning derived from the statement itself and expect the result to be applicable back up to the real statement, it doesn't work that way around. Otherwise you end up with something like

"B was T. Now B is not T."

On the face of it this is nonsense. B is B and T is T and B can never be T, right? So clearly this is wrong and B and T were always distinct things. But that's because it's missed out an important point:

"Bob was tall. Now Bob is not tall." (he was in a car accident and lost his legs or something)

In other words, T is an attribute linked to B, which you can't turn into a separate abstract variable since you lose the relationship between B and T. So it's more correct to say B was once part of set T, and now is not.

It's the same with the "that cablecar is not a regular car" stated as "that car is not a car" example: to translate that into formal logic, you would have to determine the meaning of the statement and realise it's talking about two things, both of which happen to be called car, but which do not share membership in a set which is also called car. Same is also true of the example with gasoline and crude oil, the gasoline was part of the set called crude oil.

Note too that this isn't equivocation as you said several times: equivocation involves concealing that a second meaning is present, and must be used to make an invalid link between premises each only true of one meaning. Or, in the way I've been describing it so far, treating two non-overlapping sets with the same name as if they do overlap. This is just confusing.

So up to the actual statement: since we assume the law of identity and respect the principle of charity (we're not in formal logic until we finish making our model, so we can still make a strawman at this stage), we should first consider cases where the two France items are not the same. So we're trying to translate "something called France once was in a set with something else called France, but now it is not." Nog Bogmire (talk) 19:34, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

And now this[edit]

Everyone please sit back and avoid touching this page or this talkpage for a day. Come back tomorrow cool-headed. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 19:00, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

So instead you try to continue it on Reverend's personal talk page.

No reasonable person assumes that (though that's still far fewer people than you'd think). Certainly noone would assume Rationalwiki assumes that. As such, following another convention of informal bickering, any reasonable person would assume we're deliberately changing the meaning of his words to a literal one as a humorous way of providing demonstrational material. Which is what we're doing. I even offered to put "(if taken literally)" in, but Chris reverted it. ~ 17:44, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, but a blatant strawman isn't a good example for a logic page when I'm sure there's plenty of examples of people using real formal fallacies out there that we could use, and I personally find the "haha, Trump is dumb" jokes almost as played out as saying he's orange. Nog Bogmire (talk) 17:48, 27 July 2017 (UTC)}}
This is I think the third time something I've said that could end an argument in a single comment and it gets buried so deep by stuff further below by the time I add it that the troll is the only one who notices it and (besides (in two of the cases) responding) they act like they haven't seen it afterwards.
So this really all comes down to a matter of personal opinion, doesn't it? Nogmire, stop manufacturing points to fight over with literally the nicest person on the site just because you think he's 'talking down to you', and don't come back until you've found one of these apparently plentiful examples to replace the Trump quote with. ~ 20:51, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, fuck apologising and trying to explain myself, let's just keep potholing links to insults and behaving like jackasses instead. For the record, it took me a while to type that up and I didn't see Fuzzy's post before I made mine. Nog Bogmire (talk) 20:56, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Going by the fact that you responded, you saw mine, at least. More than an hour before Fuzzy locked the article's talk page, going by the timestamps. I'm...not entirely sure why you kept this thread (that is, apparently, at this point 100% detached from any actual discussion of the original topic; that being, what the quote in the article should be) with Reverend going, but despite your change in tone in the body of text you ended up having to divert towards Reverend's talk page, you haven't entirely convinced me that it is for wholesome reasons. ~ 21:26, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Because I was trying to explain the error being made and talk things out calmly. You're not helping. Nog Bogmire (talk) 21:32, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Let's End This[edit]

Please show me the EXACT THING in the mainspace article you two are arguing about. RoninMacbeth (talk) 23:15, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Nogs doesn't want us making fun of Drumpf. Notably, this isn't the first time he's made a questionable edit and then engaged in questionable behaviors defending it. It isn't hard to posit that he had a grudge against Reverend from last time. ~ 01:41, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, trying to end edit wars by discussing stuff in the edit summaries is a great way to fuel edit warring instead. After the third revision, take it to the talkpage. Also, I can't help but notice that the war escalated rather quickly.
I think both Percy and Nog had good parts of their edits. As such, I will incorporate them into the article. RoninMacbeth (talk) 03:36, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Japan[edit]

The same guy who made "history of the entire world, i guess" made a video about a year prior called history of japan. —Bigljbigl (talk/stalk) 02:36, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi[edit]

Join me here, please http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Essay_talk:100_signs --Kingdamian1 (talk) 03:54, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Rome Viharo[edit]

Saw you moved stuff to Rome Viharo's talk page. His main-page is locked, but you might want to add Wikipedia has blacklisted his website Wikipedia We Have a Problem, while Google has de-indexed/blocked several of his website articles for defamation:

Sounds like a job for @FuzzyCatPotato. Thanks! All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:11, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
I am increasingly of the mind that Rome Viharo is an internet drama wonderland. Ugh. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 18:22, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
"Wonderland"? The guy is like drying paint! Now; contrast with someone worthy of the title... Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:28, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Peter Singer[edit]

RBP, why the revert?

Was also going to add his piece from "Shopping at the Genetic Supermarket". CorruptUser (talk) 01:29, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Hey buddy! I'm so tired I'm basically undead at this point, so bare with me. As such, let me begin by just positing the following:
First things first: context. Now, you know I'm a vocal opponent of both racism and racialism (actually having argued against these just earlier tonight); you know that I'm a feminist, liberal, non-gator, et cetera, et cetera. What I'm trying to say is: my reasons for reverting you were not due to any ideological boneheadedness on my end. Neither were my reasons derived from any supposed animosity towards you on my end (or anything of the sort — hell, you're my little buddy! Th hug.gif).
With the above in mind... I have another important caveat. I have no clue about any particular pros or cons of Peter Sanger. I don't know the man, nor have I read anything he's written, nor even ran into his name more than once or twice. Thus, I was not reverting you because I'm trying to whitewash a guy I don't even know who he is. Also, it's me — I happen to find good sport in criticizing my heroes (e.g. like James Randi, whom I love. Example edit. But, I digest.)
As such, not to sound abrasive (and please don't take this as personal criticism; it's not), but my reason for reverting you was that what you wrote simply didn't look right to me. Naturally, I will be qualifying that statement in detail, but first — I feel that one question maybe 'hangs in the air', as it were.
We've established I'm not a troll, not your enemy, not an Alt-right ideologue and not a fan of Sanger (never mind clued in on who the guy even is nor what he's even done). The question that remains, in my mind atleast, is — so what are my views on evolutionary psychology?
Thankfully, we're able to quote me on what I've said about EP (Evolutionary Psychology) previously, and if I'm harboring a sick zealotry as my ulterior reversion motives, we should likely be able to uncover it based on the view I've consistently expressed here in the past. Ok, so here goes. I'd love for you to read the following (to get a glimpse of my wider perspective).
Switching talkpages, here's the more crucial bits:
This is just some of the most basic stuff, all in short. I haven't even bothered to edit the EP article myself, etc. Why? Because I'm not on a crusade. It's just not of much 'personal importance' to me. What does matter to me, though — and what motivated me to write about it at all — is the same, basic scientific consistency I advocate for all topics we cover. And the plain fact is that (what I'll comfortably label 'non-woo EP'; help me out here, buddyWikipedia's W.svg) EP meant in that way — in the mainstream scientific consensus/academic research-type way, is not your enemy. Forget the pundits and the inflammatory God Delusion-esque books that sell well because they're edgy. What I mean is: EP, in its most fundamental, non-woo form, is not just "not opinion", but a brute fact (in the words of sociologist John Searle).
I don't want to 'labor the point' right now, I'd rather give you time to take in what I've linked and written and to reflect on my most stern warning — my oft-repeated admonishment that we all work together to not provoke ourselves into splittingWikipedia's W.svg. Because active splitting — the death of nuance — means the end of learning (in any meaningful sense). Even without splitting, we've got enough on our plates already just trying to tell up from down.
In the timeless words of Alexander Pope (an excerpt from one of my favorite quotes, actually). On mankind:

He hangs between, in doubt to act or rest
In doubt to deem himself a God or Beast
In doubt his mind or body to prefer
Born but to die, and reasoning but to err

All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:20, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
On my end...
I like to think that I'm a humanist, and insofar as feminism is about "helping women achieve equal opportunity with men", yes I'm a feminist as well. I also like to think I'm an anti-racist, or at the least a "non-racist", in that I think that 1) the "inherent" differences between races are somewhere around negligible, and 2) even if the ability to digest milk was the sign of the Ubermensch, the goal of society should be equal opportunities regardless of what someone simply looks like.
My own view of Evo-Psych is "lazy people who want to act smart without actually doing any rigorous research". Kind of like Sociology, but Biology.
However, I also believe that genes likely have an impact on intelligence, and (to a much lesser extant) personality. I have my own edits as well on this topic, and some in the barchives, which to be honest I am also a bit nervous about since it's NOT a light topic, and yes, it's likely to cause splitting.
However, speaking to some people you'd think genes were the only factor. Talking to racists, they will claim there is something biologically wrong with African Americans, which ignores that African immigrants are actually a "model minority", which kind of proves that either virtually all of the African American community's problems boil down to racism/poverty/culture and not genetics, or the snarky answer that the bad genes they have came from the white slave-owners.
I was reading up a bit on "Hereditary Leftism". "Hereditarianism" is generally an alt-right/"race realist" thing, as it claims that genes explain the vast majority of differences in personality, but I noticed that Peter Singer had written some stuff about that. So I thought it might be useful to add a bit to his article. Was going to add this bit before I had been reverted:

Interestingly, Singer supports genetic engineering for humans, but done through the state. Shopping at the Genetic Supermarket Why? Two reasons. One, he considers it a "good" thing; if intentionally causing an embryo to develop a disability is immoral, it probably follows that intentionally causing an embryo with a disability to instead become health is moral. Two, he believes it's going to happen anyway, the example given being that overwhelming majority of women with Down Syndrome fetuses choose to abort, so rather than have a society of the rich genetically altering themselves into the Ubermensch while the poor are left behind, government can provide it more equitably.

But yes, I agree it's risking Splitting. It's really not that important for me to fight over, so if you want me to drop it I will. CorruptUser (talk) 03:04, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I Heard You Like Tabletop Games, So I Got A Tabletop Game So You Can...[edit]

Pathfinder. You ever play it? RoninMacbeth (talk) 00:17, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Question for a Swede[edit]

I've run across cranky UFO-ish things cited to ExpressenWikipedia's W.svg. Are they taken seriously, or are they a kind of Swedish National Enquirer? Leuders (talk) 20:10, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Email[edit]

Check it. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 15:14, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Meeting today![edit]

Happening shortly! The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 17:27, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

----[edit]

Just need someone to converse with.-💠💿☝️ (talk) 02:41, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Replied to your note[edit]

Hey RBP. Sorry. I have been (and kind of still am) off the grid. I just saw your note now and replied. I've never learned how to send an automated flag to somebody that I responded, so I'm sending a ping you here. --Bertrc (talk) 14:57, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Cuteness[edit]

I see you like my photo of the cat. —Bigljbigl (talk/stalk) 04:46, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

IDK who else to ask[edit]

In mobile, I followed a link from WIGO World, the "6000+ people hold far-right rock concert in Germany featuring Hitler salute, 'Heil' chant and 40+ other racist crimes" one on Android. Suddenly, I was hit with an scamware ad that covered my screen and claimed my android is infected with some viruses, and my android beeped, and then it told me to install an app. Of course, I didn't believe that and went the hell back. Is it just me, or should we warn Android users about that problematic ad I just found? --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 01:19, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

That fake ad is everywhere. I'm on an iPad and I've gotten it too. —вιgℓʝвιgℓ (тαℓк/ѕтαℓк) 01:28, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

John Fuerst[edit]

See the John Fuerst talk page; the main article is locked. If you unlock it I can make amendments. Welliver (talk) 21:17, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

It will remain locked for the time being — however, you are now able to edit it despite the lock.
If you plan on doing so, please note that we are interested in sourced quotes and the likes — quality material which is demonstrably not a fabrication.
We are not interested in seeing anyone 'snark up the page some extra' (basically going: "Fuck you, Fuerst!"). What matters is documenting Fuerst's own words and letting his shitty views speak for themselves.
Removal-proofing of solid article claims (via sourced refs) is what is needed, not mere addition of 'roast material'. Thanks in advance. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:14, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi, thanks. Is there any chance you could remove/hide the edit of the public IP on the talk page where I forgot to sign in: see here. Its not my IP address since i'm using a laptop at someone else house and he probably doesn't want a public edit on a wiki made on it.Welliver (talk) 10:59, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
here's the single edit with the IP address- here. I now see there are other IPs commentating, but those are not me.Welliver (talk) 15:01, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Well, too bad I didn't see this first before doing some sysop magic. Anyway, try making the article like my new edits. I just dumped a bunch of stuff lame stuff he said.—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 15:38, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

@ reverend, another sysop has helped me and removed what I wanted. Thanks anyway. If you take a look at the Saloon bar, I wrote a section about John Fuerst showing up.Welliver (talk) 16:04, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Renaming[edit]

You might want to hide your renaming entry because it still contains sensitive info.—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 20:30, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Just tell me how, and I'm on it like stink on dog shit. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:34, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Well a year ago, I had the ability to, but now I don't. Check out this page and see if you have the authority as a moderator.—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 20:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Now, I am not an overly intelligent man, but I don't see any buttons for anything in there. Sorry, bud'. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:39, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Regressive Left[edit]

I reverted your changes to my changes to Regressive left because:

1. I think RW, being a sceptic-oriented site, should be shamelessly mocking left-wing apologists for Islam and Islamism. We don't have balanced considerations of the pros and cons of the Christian Right do we?

2. The bit about "plays into the narratives of reactionaries" is a ridiculous argument because, as I noted in an edit summary, it can be used to prohibit criticism of absolutely anything. Saying "don't criticise Islamic practices because some morons (who can't tell the difference between religion and race) might illogically think that justifies racism" makes just as much sense as "don't criticise peadophillia because some morons (who can't tell the difference between paedophillia and homosexuality) might think that justifies anti-gay hate crimes". The idea of not making valid criticisms because idiots might draw crazy conclusions from them and kill someone must rank as one of the worst arguments imaginable. Cornucopia (talk) 12:48, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to reinstate my version once more, and I highly suggest that you let it stand for the time being — this, for the simple reason that I'd be surprised if Mona's ghost someone didn't jump in and try to revert us both.
As for your argument, I see you point, but I also feel that it's very important to clarify that "no, this doesn't mean that Breitbart got anything right, ever". I think what I wrote is a decent middle ground, for now.
Again, have som patience and let my version stand for now. That is my advice. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:54, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand you. Are you saying to let your version stand so we can discuss it? If so, could you elaborate on why you don't like my version? Or are you saying you don't object but to let it stand because someone else might? Why not deal with that if it happens rather than acting on hypotheticals?
Not being American, I'm not familiar with "Breitbart", which is according to google an American far-right news channel. I don't know precisely what they say, but you seem to be making the "Hitler ate sugar" fallacy. I suppose we can't be atheists because it's important to emphasise that Stalin never got anything right ever! Cornucopia (talk) 13:14, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Academic'ish parallel systems.[edit]

The below post is a nut which fell from the following tree.

Hiya, Rev. Picking up on the free market/religious fundie penchant for "academic'ish" institutions, I think the Communist/Marxist parallel is slightly different in being mainly either a stream within traditional academia or essentially a part of the official state propaganda apparatus of the various Eastern Bloc countries. Trying to either influence academia "from within" or outright replacing it entirely is somewhat different from either trying to establish a separate, parallel system with the trappings of traditional academia. It's interesting that the free market fundamentalist approach, combining the establishment of a parallel system as well as influencing traditional academia, is, in my eyes, closer to something like the old Communist approach as practiced in the Western Bloc during the Cold War than is the more clear cut parallel intellectual echo chamber created by the current, informal US network of Christian (mainly Protestant/Reformed) fundie schools.

It was exactly my encounter with William Lane Craig's academic-sounding rhetorical shell game that made me realise the extent to which this closed system kept reinforcing often outdated, conservative interpretations by presenting a closed loop in which a particular version of a "conservative consensus" is upheld, as if it was a general academic consensus. Living in a country which gave rise to the name of a particularly stringent version of Biblical minimalismWikipedia's W.svg ("The Copenhagen School"), I was astonished and dismayed at Craig's absurd depiction of some version of biblical literalism as "the consensus", even among bible scholars (i.e. typically theologians) and such critical bible scholars as Bart Ehrman, Robert M. Price and Richard Carrier have criticised Craig for painting a false picture of where the consensus lies, even within this quite biased field.

Then I began to realise that there was this closed loop in which conservatives à la Craig kept citing each other and I began to quickly identify "the usual suspects", such as Gary Habermas, Craig BlombergWikipedia's W.svg or Ben Witherington IIIWikipedia's W.svg. They all work solely within the fundie school echo chamber and rely on this closed ecosystem to create and reinforce a false image among their students and co-religionists about what the academic consensus actually is. The really pernicious element is that they do this in a system that disguises itself as one similar to academia in which consensus, while far from perfect, at least tends to arise from a continuous process of debate and challenge, in stark contrast to the fundie schools.

What is especially irksome is then to have someone as sanctimonious, smarmy and slippery as Craig climb on his imaginary high horse and berate actual academics for what he claims are their intellectual shortcomings (cue Matthew 7:3):

And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

This is made even more galling when he scolds a highly experienced cosmologist, such as Stephen Hawking, for being "philosophically unsophisticated" and a "layman" philosophy who should basically leave discussions fundamental questions of cosmological epistemology and ontology to "professional philosophers", such as Craig himself, while Craig is at the same time notorious for cherry picking and quotemining cosmologists in his debates to make it seem as if they support his fundie-based views (there's that false depiction of the consensus, again).

Similarly, Craig has claimed numerous times that there has been a, dare I say, paradigm shift in his direction in academia, moving the consensus ever closer to his own stances within both philosophy, bible scholarship, and natural science — a claim which is simply flat out wrong. However, students at such places at Biola or Houston Baptist "University" are unlikely to realise this, unless they decide to pursue an independent course of actively seeking out opinions from without the echo chamber. You can also see on the CVs of Craig and similar types that they tend to mainly have been trained and employed within the fundie school bubble with the exceptions typically being their Ph.D.s and a few visiting fellowships (I suspect this is mainly/solely to get the X-factor of brand recognition from actual academic institutions for when they subsequently return to the fundie echo chamber).

Essentially, the fundie schools are parasites on academia, piggybacking on the prestige academia has achieved by actually helping to create new knowledge. At the same time, fundie schools are also essentially conning their own students by pretending to supply an actual academic education, when what lies (or at least should lie) at the heart of such an education would be teaching based on state of the art research — along with a more general kind of Bildung, as epitomised by the Humboldtian model of higher educationWikipedia's W.svg. Instead, students at fundie schools are served a more or less bowdlerised education, tailored to foster and reinforce a specific religious worldview.

Well, I guess that's enough ranting for now ;-) ScepticWombat (talk) 20:03, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Very interesting discussion! I have little to reply with right now, as I find myself largely in agreement with your words. That being said, I know of atleast three people I'd like to invite over right away (to see what input, if any, they wish to offer us): @BruceGrubb @Rationalzombie94 @Cosmikdebris. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:39, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Brief follow up with a somewhat Adam Curtis'ish connection: I guess I'm drawing on some of the same issue as expresses more eloquently (and using a visual style clearly inspired by Adam Curtis) by YouTuber and philosopher Gary Edwards in his three short videos on why he doesn't respect apologetic philosophy. ScepticWombat (talk) 21:47, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Philosophy seems to becoming the go to argument for apologists and everybody seems to ignore the fact that philosophy is so culturally dependent that as a universal science it has the same problems as psychiatry and psychology does - it cannot easily move across cultures. In anthropological terms this is the emic (internal) vs etic (external) issue. Shakespeare in the Bush gives an example of how culture changes how a story is viewed. Apologist philosophy is only relevant in its own particular emic framework; outside of that it borders on the useless. Besides philosophy can ask questions that have no one definitive answer: what is the sound of one hand clapping? or what happens when the irresistible force meets the immovable object? What is beyond infinity?--BruceGrubb (talk) 13:30, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
The problem is not that philosophy is culturally dependent, but that apologists present as warped a picture of the "philosophical consensus" as they do with regards to the "scientific consensus" within certain fields (e.g. teach the controversy), using the same rhetorical tricks, such as cherry picking, equivocating, quote mining, dredging up outdated concepts and outright lying about what the majority academic view/consensus within the field is. Again, William Lane Craig is a prime example of this with regards to both science, philosophy and other academic disciplines.
The bowdlerised version of philosophy apparently being taught at fundie schools thus seems little different to me than the shoe horning approach they apply to other academic disciplines. A case in point directly related to Craig is Biola's History B.A., whose programme includes the following description (my emphasis):
"Coursework will examine important religious, social, political and economic movements of human history, and aim to reveal God's dependability and redemption purposes throughout the world."
The latter part of this goal has no place in any normal (i.e. non-fundie school) academic history programme, but is typical of the fundie school approach: Start out with what sounds like an actual academic approach and then add a religious rider that is the very antithesis of academia by ring fencing the limits of critical enquiry, typically by including a statement of faith or some similar dogmatic "go no further"-line; in this case by stipulating (presupposing) that God is a fundamental (pun intended) force of history. These "dogmatic add ons" render the initial academic sounding phrases utterly meaningless and/or turn them into the kind of "academic'ish rhetorical repackaging" of fundamentalist apologetics that Craig embodies. ScepticWombat (talk) 21:39, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Your thoughts requested[edit]

At Essay:RationalWiki's coverage of politics Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 21:46, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Ten-four, good buddy Th hug.gif Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:09, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Incel Marxism[edit]

Hey RBP, I found a...very interesting reddit thread regarding applying Marxism to the "incel community," and posted about it on the Saloon Bar. I definitely wanna hear your thoughts on it! Lord Aeonian (talk) 21:35, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Two questions[edit]

My old account was Ru1138. It seems I can't log into it any more and the email account I used to register might be an old deleted one so I might not be able to get the password back. Also the last time I logged in I had discovered that my account was temporarily suspended, if that information is pertinent. I'll try to get back my old account if I can, but I'll use this one in case it's a lost cause. Is that okay? Rusakov (talk) 22:02, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Board meeting this weekend[edit]

Check yo' email! Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 21:58, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Anybody home?[edit]

FuzzyCatPotato of the Atheistic Rutabagas (talk/stalk) 14:43, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Are you okay? I haven't seen you on steam. S.H. DeLong (talk) 00:49, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Looking for your feedback[edit]

Thought I'd leave a note here, even though you probably already got a notification about my comment referencing you on Talk:Roy Masters. --Psychoguy911 (talk) 14:36, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

PLEASE[edit]

join me on my most controversial Essay yet https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Essay:All_Cultures_Are_Not_Equel --Kingdamian1 (talk) 02:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

ADHD vs Asperger syndrome[edit]

I was bouncing around and discovered that you have ADHD. I was diagnosed as being hyperkinetic (old term for ADHD) back in the early 1970s. It turned out that my "hyperkinesis" was actually Asperger syndrome. Given the overlap between ADHD and parts of the autism spectrum I wonder how many people of my generation were also misclassified.BruceGrubb (talk) 02:23, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Israel problems And Percy's passive ignorance[edit]

Evil Zionist is pushing a agenda of pro-imperialism onto several people within this website. He never listens to anyone, and has a nagging problem with a lack of sources. The Israel article continues to be a problem, and you won't do anything about it. Before you ask, I do have a main user account on this website, but I maintain my right to anonymity. What is to be done? You appear to revert edits made by people with a negative view of it, but you allow a "hardcore Zionist" to make major edits to be page, despite clear bias from himself. Read Chomsky's "Who Rules The World" and refer to it as a main source in order to correct this article. Father White Jackson AKA 194.82.180.254 (talk) 12:57, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Percy's last edit was ten days ago. You're probably not going to get much of a response from him. If you need to talk to a mod, go to FuzzyCatPotato or Bongolian. RoninMacbeth (talk) 14:58, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
What are the specific pages and changes in question? In general, unreferenced changes should not be allowed on the Israel/Palestine pages. Bongolian (talk) 19:58, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Read Percy's contributions Jackson. Percy doesn't have time to be on here to read those edits on Israel. --S.H. DeLong (talk) 05:55, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

ADHD vs Asperger syndrome[edit]

I was bouncing around and discovered that you have ADHD. I was diagnosed as being hyperkinetic (old term for ADHD) back in the early 1970s. It turned out that my "hyperkinesis" was actually Asperger syndrome. Given the overlap between ADHD and parts of the autism spectrum I wonder how many people of my generation were also misclassified.BruceGrubb (talk) 02:23, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Israel problems And Percy's passive ignorance[edit]

Evil Zionist is pushing a agenda of pro-imperialism onto several people within this website. He never listens to anyone, and has a nagging problem with a lack of sources. The Israel article continues to be a problem, and you won't do anything about it. Before you ask, I do have a main user account on this website, but I maintain my right to anonymity. What is to be done? You appear to revert edits made by people with a negative view of it, but you allow a "hardcore Zionist" to make major edits to be page, despite clear bias from himself. Read Chomsky's "Who Rules The World" and refer to it as a main source in order to correct this article. Father White Jackson AKA 194.82.180.254 (talk) 12:57, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Percy's last edit was ten days ago. You're probably not going to get much of a response from him. If you need to talk to a mod, go to FuzzyCatPotato or Bongolian. RoninMacbeth (talk) 14:58, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
What are the specific pages and changes in question? In general, unreferenced changes should not be allowed on the Israel/Palestine pages. Bongolian (talk) 19:58, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Read Percy's contributions Jackson. Percy doesn't have time to be on here to read those edits on Israel. --S.H. DeLong (talk) 05:55, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Welcome Back![edit]

Please check out the responses on the Physics talk page when you have time. :-) Nerd271 (talk) 15:23, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Yay! Percy's back! Th hug.gif Where have you been? RoninMacbeth (talk) 16:11, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Clarification[edit]

Thanks for helping to clarify. I could be really tired and not thinking straight but I am still confused by the first part: "due to societal perceptions and the environment surrounding the minority traits that feed into each other". If I'm the only one who is confused by it though, then I'm happy to leave it. No need to explain if I'm just being dense. CowHouse (talk) 06:13, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

No problemo, buddy Th hug.gif I just corrected the phrasing — though frankly, I've no idea precisely what that segment is even trying to convey. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 06:24, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Discord[edit]

Would u like to join the official RW Discord? The link is in external links with FB and Twitter. —ѕυρяємє ℓєα∂єя вιgℓʝвιgℓ σf gσαтιѕтαи (ωσя∂ѕ σf ωιѕ∂σм/α¢нιєνємєитѕ) 22:58, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm on there! --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 23:19, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
As am I! S.H. DeLong (talk) 18:12, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Silent Spring is now Noisy Summer[edit]

You guys had to read that for university? We had to read parts of it in high school. I reread the whole book last summer. She was a wonderful writer. You might be interested in a PBS documentary about her and her work. Nerd271 (talk) 00:53, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

You okay?[edit]

Hey @Reverend Black Percy, I noticed you haven't been posting for a while. I hope you're okay. If you need a distraction from the real world, lemme know: Your " On the off chance that God exists" quote peaked my interest.  :-) (and if you don't need the bother, right now, know that I'm thinking of you and hoping things improve . . . And that I will try not to distract you by adding more irritants! I can certainly empathize with meat-space troubles) --Bertrc (talk) 01:43, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, we do indeed miss you, Percy! Bongolian (talk) 03:40, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
I do miss my favourite Swede. Spud (talk) 03:42, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Percy come back. Unless you're deliriously happy where you are. Then don't. Leuders (talk) 04:33, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
I miss you too. :( He seems to be on Steam, though. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 04:35, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Why must Percy leave us? RoninMacbeth (talk) 05:50, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
I personally drained Percy's life force in order to fuel my return to this site. His body now rests, bloodless and slowly mummifying, in the Mojave Desert where I lured him. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 03:04, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
There is no life force; there is biochemistry. Let me tell you something Mr. Radioactive Waste. I will look for you. I will find you. And I will recycle you! Nerd (talk) 03:31, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
But you only recycle something if... you think I have value? ;__; Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 05:09, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

You There?[edit]

Moderator elections are just around the corner, just so you know. Hope all is going well, and I FINALLY started watching Rick and Morty (to wit, it's fucking amazing). Th hug.gif RoninMacbeth (talk) 00:03, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

@Reverend Black Percy Please give us a holler, Mr. Moderator. Nerd (talk) 02:40, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
@Reverend Black Percy You literally have not made an edit for 2 months. Start editing again, and you will receive a free cyber hug.-💠💿☝️ (talk) 04:52, 1 December 2017 (UTC)