RationalWiki:Saloon bar

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Saloon bar
WIGO Bar colour.png

This is a place for general chit-chat about virtually anything that doesn't fit anywhere else.
Friends.gif For previous conversations see the automagic barchives. Guinnesssmiley.gif

What is going on?

The Bar
(talk) (talk) (talk) (talk) (hic)

  1. Oriental Medicine (12:14, 29 Nov 2016)
  2. I have no idea what i'm doing here and you guys scare me. (16:21, 26 Oct 2016)
  3. Russian RationalWiki (08:24, 18 Oct 2016)
  4. The problem of Biblical scholarship (01:17, 12 Oct 2016)
  5. Page listing top moronic quotes from the internet? (15:53, 11 Oct 2016)
  6. Am I a misogynist? (03:22, 6 Oct 2016)
To do list


[edit] What's wrong with currency competion ?

This discussion was moved to Talk:Currency competition.

[edit] Regarding WikiLeaks

I've made a couple tweets here regarding Wikileaks. I'll transcribe it here.

"You should consider Greenwald and WikiLeaks are becoming unreliable in light of recent events. I've seen posts at WIGO that placed WL and its associates as in the right, despite evidence to the contrary. You'll be condemned if you insist on giving them attention. They are not to be trusted.

A number of articles had intelligence agencies point to Russia providing information to Wikileaks. WikiLeaks has, ironically, spoken out against leaking information. In short, I suggest we cut our support of the group, as they're no longer standing for transparency. --Nord Ronnoc (talk) 09:56, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Why are Wikileaks and Greenwald unreliable? Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with healthy skepticism of everything, and I mean everything, but Wikileaks does not editorialise. It just publishes information, many times without due regard for what is in the public interest and what isn't. Even Snowden called it out for this. Greenwald does, but much of what he editorialises upon, in so far as the government, or the state, is concerned, is government policy. He doesn't make stuff up. Neither of them do. I am no supporter of Wikileaks and Julian Assange. I think Wikileaks, in its current state, exemplifies is everything that is wrong with whistleblowing - and I value whistleblowing immensely. But it seems to me, in fact, it is objectively observable, that Wikileaks doesn't seem to care about curating the content in its possession. That can be dangerous. Compare with Greenwald, who did not publish the vast majority of the content disclosed to him by Snowden, because he curated them. Nevertheless, I do think Wikileaks is a necessary evil, because let us face it, the supposed "fourth estate" has abnegated its responsibility. As for Greenwald, even though personally, I think it is more likely than not that the Russians did interfere with the election, I do not disagree with Greenwald that we should be skeptical of the intelligence community's findings. The CIA, the FBI, the NSA et cetera aren't exactly trustworthy. Furthermore, much of the evidence they present are sketchy, conjecture, speculative and from anonymous sources. There is nothing wrong with healthy skepticism. Say what you want about Greenwald, he is the only person who has been consistent so far. Liberals, who once mocked conservatives for their attempts to rehash the Cold War are now the ones rehashing the Cold War, all because their candidate lost the election. Furthermore, it is not exactly like America is an innocent victim here. Decades - DECADES! - of interfering in other countries and how they choose their leaders. Iran, Libya, Syria, Nicaragua, Chile, Iraq, Egypt; to name a few. And, of course, Russia. Didn't Hillary question Putin's election in 2011? "He who comes to equity must come to equity with clean hands". America does not have clean hands. Levi Ackerman (talk) 11:09, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Article link: Whataboutism. America bad != Russia not bad. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 12:31, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm not so much saying "America bad! = Russia not bad!"; more "it's both ironic and hypocritical of America to kick up a storm about another country interfering in its own political process". America is notorious for interfering in the political processes of other countries. I'm sure I do not need to rehash examples of American interventionism. So, forgive me for not sympathising with America for getting a taste of its own medicine. By the way, I do think Russia interfered in the US election. I wouldn't go as far as saying it "hacked the US election", as many are saying, as that, prima facie, suggests that Russia tampered with the ballot boxes. Levi Ackerman (talk) 13:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
I am skeptical to the statement that WL has developed a right-wing bias. Although I have never really been a fan of WL in general. I strongly disagree with their method of simply just dumping leaked information without any care taken to hide the identities of innocent participants. I disagree with the notion that it is beneficial to leak all information due to a (in my opinion) misguided philosophy that all information should be completely open. As in the case of the leaked Sony mails. The leaking of these emails, and especially the personal emails of employees did not benefit the population of any country in any sense. It was just silly.
But to the core of the matter. I still think WL can be a source of valuable information for the mission of RW, but I think there is a lot of valid criticism to be directed towards them. TheGrandmother (talk) 12:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree with TGM here and in addition we should stop trusting WL blindly. Well for me at least, WL used to be a beacon of truth and now they are just like everybody else: flawed and prone to Error.
And in before someone is going on about how Dem's should stop shifting blame onto russia for the lost election. Please do not open that barell again. We get it Trump could have won without the hacking scandal yadda yadda. Yes all true (maybe ;P ) so can we stick to, how Russia is trying to fidget with Elections in other Countries? (this election come to my mind )--Benaresh (talk) 15:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
and no i don't baseless point my finger to Russia regarding the German Election: this and this --Benaresh (talk) 15:15, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Not only is WikiLeaks' social media presence hugely anti-Obama & pro-Trump, they seem to encourage trolling & doxxing, which only strengthens their appeal to the alt-right. Their latest hare-brained idea was building an online database of verified Twitter accounts with their family, home & job details. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 15:45, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

OH... OH... I had no idea. I do not have a Twitter account and i deleted my Facebook page years ago so i am not aware of social media presences of anyone. Nobody reported on WL Alt-right bend either. I will keep that in mind in future talks about WL--Benaresh (talk) 16:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
That's patently false, Weaseloid. Wikileaks' social media is not pro-Trump. You can debate whether it is specifically anti-Obama, or just anti-whatever-is-the-current-American-administration, but to say it is pro-Trump is an observable untruth. Wikileaks social media is pro-Wikileaks. That is all. If you disagree, it is up to you to prove to us, by way of an example of a social media post or a tweet by Wikileaks, that is pro-Trump.Levi Ackerman (talk) 16:46, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
@Benaresh, whilst not urging you not to be cautious about WL, I would urge you against believing Weaseloid's claim that Wikileaks' social media is in anyway is pro-Trump. Like I said, Wikileaks is pro-Wikileaks. Whatever it does, it does for its own benefit. But it has never expressly or implicitly endorsed Trump, even if it helped him during the election.Levi Ackerman (talk) 16:49, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Here is an odd thing about WL. If I understand things correctly Julin A said that their leaked Democratic email data did not come from Russia. However WL claims that when people send them data it is subject to various anonymizing protocols. But if they receive data anonymously - how can they claim it did not come from Russia? Surely all they can say is that it arrived anonymously. --Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 21:46, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

There's also evidence that Russia and WikiLeaks have worked together even before the 2016 elections. And Glenn Greenwald's known to have working ties with Assauge, so that means anything from the Intercept is very biased. Also, WikiLeaks have tweeted about making a database, something they oppose the NSA for doing. Then they deleted it.--Nord Ronnoc (talk) 22:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I used to have a pretty navïe view of WL back in the day, but today, any meaningful discussion on WL must be had in the context of thisWikipedia's W.svg and this. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:22, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay, after further investigation I have now changed my opinion on the topic to what can be best umarized by: "WL can go F*** themselves".TheGrandmother (talk) 16:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Goodpost.gif Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:17, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Uhhhh... No. Not a good post.
You seem to trust the website Vox, who trusts the CIA when the CIA says Russian intelligence works with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange to do... something. They never say what. But the fact that Glenn Greenwald, who works for the Intercept, also worked with Julian Assange at one point doesn't automatically mean the Intercept is a pro-Putin propaganda rag, which is essentially what you're implying by saying "that means anything from the Intercept is very biased."
But let me be extremely candid here. If Russia reveals American corruption, why should we be outraged at this? We should be heaping praise on Putin for revealing how corrupt our politics is. He, and Russia, revealed that both Hillary and Trump were fed debate questions beforehand by debate hosts that were supposed to be unbiased. They revealed that one party actively conspired and succeeded in preventing someone they didn't like from becoming president. That's important information that the American public absolutely had to know, and it's a great thing Russia hacked the emails to show us how bad and immoral our leaders are.
Liberals shouldn't be outraged at Russia or Putin. They should be outraged at Clinton and the DNC, who are extremely corrupt and shouldn't be let of the hook like they're being right now. PbFreespace (talk) 05:56, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
PBF3 and I agreeing on something? Someone grab an engineer, we are going to be rich from converting the fluctuating temperatures of hell to electricity. CorruptUser (talk) 06:34, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

[edit] Can I remove content from my talk page?

[edit] People against Trump

Okay, I don't like Trump as a person, he has a super inflated ego and money hungry but that being said, you don't know how things will go under Trump. Who knows, he might be able to do a good job (not holding my breath). It is not like anyone can see into the future, Ronald Regan (not sure how it is spelled, so sue me) did a fairly good job. The Democratic party is doing the same thing as what the Republicans did with Obama, who knows, maybe the moderates in government can influence Trump in making good choices. We need to work together as a nation and not be divided; we all have different views on politics, no one says you have to like Trump. No I do not hate Obama because I did vote for him back in 2012 (That is when I turned 18 years old) and I supported many of his choices; the conservatives were insulting Obama at every turn (Calling him a terrorist, traitor, terrorist sympathizer, not an American citizen and so on) like what the Democrats are saying about Trump. If they don't like the conservatives then don't act like them. Plain and simple, try working with someone you don't like. It could work out as you could influence the person you don't like. Keep in mind, I don't like Trump as a person but you don't know what will happen. You cannot tell the future, just grin and bear it for the next four years. You don't get everything you want in life, take the good with the bad. That is all you can do, now IF things go horribly bad and there is a dictatorship then I would say, "Lets revolt" but we don't know. Deal with the cards we were dealt with--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 02:47, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

"Deal with the cards we were dealt with". If you keep getting dealt bad cards, walk away from the table. StickySock (talk) 03:08, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
If things take a turn for a worse it will already be too late. Staying loud, calling our reps and making the Republican's lives a living hell right now is what we should do. And by the way, Reagan's a monster, not least because he let thousands die of the AIDs crisis and got the systems up that have snowballed for decades and created the economic/societal conditions that let someone like Trump get his greasy hands on the White House. "Grin and bear it" is not and never should be an option. MyNameIsMudd (talk) 03:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
I guess my point was missed completely? I clearly stated that you don't know what will happen. I don't and nobody else does, just because someone acts one way in public does not automatically mean they act the same in private. Another thing, do you want to become the group of people you hate? I guess Obama did absolutely nothing, ignore the civil rights advances for gays, ignore getting rid of Bin Laden, ignore improving federal regulations on businesses, just ignore all that. You cannot blame one person for everything; congress has a say in how things happen. I could argue every single previous President is at fault for everything for setting the stage for not so good Presidents. I don't like Trump but blaming him for everything when he is not even President does not help anybody. I guess Democrats have absolutely no impact on the current state of things.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 03:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
It may not be possible to know what will happen, but we can get a pretty good idea of how it will turn out based on his public statements and who he's nominated and surrounded himself with. Guess who those are by the way? A mix of establishment Republicans and crazy right-wing racists and regards. Is that really so hard to analyze and make predictions based off of? I for one have plenty of predictions about a Trump presidency: he won't build the wall as he promised, he won't deport all the illegals, he'll keep parts of Obamacare, he'll engage in at least one major military action. I'm fairly confident of all those. PB3 (talk) 03:53, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Trump is bad, but he's not as bad as Hitler that butthurt liberals are making him out to be. He's still going to be the American president. No protest is going to change that. No amount of whining is going to change that. People should get involved in their political system once Trump gets elected, it's more productive after all.— CheeseburgerFace (talk) 03:59, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
I think when American liberals compare Trump to Hitler, they're doing it to highlight many of Trump's authoritarian tendencies and policies they fear will cause the country to go in a negative direction. I don't think anyone is saying he's literally Hitler. It's true that no protest will stop him from becoming President, only a revolution, and that will never happen in America. The actual way is civil disobedience. If Trump decides to do something bad, all the Americans should go against it in whatever nonviolent way possible and deny cooperation. If no one consents to it, Trump won't have any real power. Obama basically said this tonight, behind layers of veil. And yes, people should be more politically involved. Voting should be frickin mandatory too, although that won't happen. Heck, in America you could just get people to vote by offering them a tax break. PbFЯЗЭSPДCЗ (talk) 04:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Just because a series of events happen does not mean the events will go in one direction, we still have congress making most choices. I am sure there are crazy Dems in the government who produce negative results just as bad as right wing nuts; just because someone might seem evil does not mean you cannot positively influence someone. Just because you don't like someone does not mean they won't do a bad job. You cannot blame a single part of a system when others work with it and have an impact. Just stop blaming a single person when congress makes most choices, not everything can be blamed on Trump. Trump will be President, you don't like it and I don't like it but too bad. I am not saying people are not allowed to have their views but those who support Trump have the right to their view, free speech is a two way street. Voice your opinions but realize the people you oppose have the right to their views, it does not make them bad people. $10 says that what I said will be taken out of context.— Unsigned, by: Rationalzombie94 / talk / contribs
"I am ...[a] crazy ... who ... nuts ... on Trump" — Rationalzombie94, 2017— CheeseburgerFace (talk) 04:35, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
"I am... [a] crazy...who....looks.....only for the bad in people"- CheeseburgerFace, 2017. If you can assume I adore Trump then I can assume you only look for the worst in people. Two can play at that game. Guess what, I have stated several times in the past I don't like Trump and I have little trust for him. Just because I am willing to give a person a chance does not mean I like said person. How about we stop with the mentality, "The President is the sole cause of government problems". I clearly stated democrats are acting like the people they hate and the fact that people have the right to their views. Thanks for the assumption though despite the fact you know nothing about me or how I think in person. Hell, it is possible that I have lied about my views the whole time but I know I have told the truth about my views because I hate lying. I really do, I put up with that shit from my dead beat father. That being said, can we be civil now and stop the assumptions? I respect your right to your views but I only tried to constructively debate your views, what do I get in return? Assumptions about my political thought. Lets start over and be civil, this was the only major insult other comparing the behavior of the left with how the right acted with Obama. Like I asked, do you want to become what you hate?--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 05:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Do realize that my post was not me taking a jab at you, it was my (attempt) to be funny. I literally took words out of context to form a quote, note the last sentence in your post; at least I thought it was funny. If you read my post above, you might have known that I agree with your stance. Hopefully no hard feelings.— CheeseburgerFace (talk) 05:33, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I misread. I admit, I am getting tired. It is about 1 am here in Michigan--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 05:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── RZ, you're showing yourself savvy. Here's what I'd recommend (FWIW): remain sceptical of Trump but not partisan (yet); focus on studying closely those Republicans and conservatives who were outspoken against Trump (Bill Kristol, Romney, McCain, Paul Ryan are the more high-profile, but there's numerous others) and take ques from them. When they become critical, join in the chorus without going over the top and identifying yourself as a partisan or Trump-hater. This is a two-pronged strategy, it targets both Trump & GOP divisions from the inside, rather than remaining a 'bitter-klinger' which doesn't evoke sympzthy from anybody. nobs 18:02, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

...and whatever you do, don't forget to bring a return ticket before willfully entering the wonderful world of whimsical wonder nobs. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:34, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Alternatively, a person could whine and complain til the Midterms only to get bitch-slapped by society all over again. Or they could occupy the time making money to avoid depression and thoughts of suicide. What other options are there? nobs 21:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Where "Society" means a minority of people defined by the stupidest and most over-empowered assholes? You're making it really goddamn tempting to say "gut trump supporters like fish and restore actual democracy" is good solution, nobs. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 21:06, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Here's the problem, and I say this not as a partisan, but to help you. Right now Trump represents America. Trump has done nothing, absolutely nothing, yet. To disrespect him is seen by many people of all political stripes, inside America and outside America, is seen as being disrespectful of the whole country and its institutions. Take a breath. Wait. Wait till Trump makes a mistake that warrants criticism. Then your ideas and opinions carry weight. nobs 04:31, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
He's selected members of his cabinet and put forward people for various positions. It's not the same as being president, but it's not nothing. CorruptUser (talk) 05:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
But even the cabinet appointees have done nothing yet. Peopld are fallible, they make mistakes. And when a president makes a mistake - either intentionally or from stupidity - it has big consequences. You know it will happen probably sooner than later. This why we have free speech. When it does happen, people look for level headed solutions, and not bickering partisans with an axe to grind whose judgement is clouded by bias.
Take the NATO deployment to Poland, for instance. The new commander in chief (actually Mike Flynn & Matthis, in reality) have no good choice here. Does Trump immediately order them to stand down to appease his stated goal of improved relations with Putin? Does he piss-off the Polish allies and others and scare them with a lack of confidence? This deployment flys in the face of his past statements about requiring allies to ante-up their share of the cost. What about budgetary concerns? This was expensive to put them there, and would be equally expensive to remove them. Or you can remove the manpower and leave all the expensive equipment behind. We will see very quickly how effective Trump as a delegator of national security is, cause he needs a pretty clear vision of objectives, and there's no readily clear good choice without infuriating some people and drawing massive criticism from somewhere. Alternatively, let's not "exclude genius from the rule", as Clausewitz said.
There's much talk Trump is at war with the CIA. He maybe at war with the entire NATO establishment. Let's see how he and his band of generals, and Tillerson handle it. Tillerson's been in bed with Putin. Let's see if Putin likes golden showers from Tillerson, or Tillerson from Putin. We'll know soon enough. nobs 16:06, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
That's not soon enough. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 16:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

[edit] Idea for a refutation article

I didn't see any on this topic but have an article that refutes Homophobic arguments and claims--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 20:50, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

It seems kind of easy, and we already have a good number of pages on homosexuality. Personally, I'd like an article refuting arguments against help for poor people, whether working or not (they are poor because they are lazy, they should have choosed a better job, etc...). And expanding the refutation page on immigration. It seems more urgent. Diacelium (talk) 23:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
I think I will take a crack at refuting arguments for helping poor people--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:57, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
So, I saw you started your page on homophobic arguments, so I decided to make an user page on myths about poverty. Anyone can edit it. Diacelium (talk) 23:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

[edit] I fucking hate myself

Why's everything so fucked to be honest, you know what I'm saying? Nothing's the way it used to be, and even the way it used to be was pretty fucking awful. Nothing feels real and I just feel absolutely beyond fucked. What's going on? (talk) 13:35, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Does anyone else in your life know you feel this way? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:52, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
I know that doesn't sound like depression as you're used to hearing it described, but that's probably depression. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:47, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Knowing my experience with Depression, that does sound very much like Depression. You should see a Psychiatrist to confirm the diagnosis, if you don't get the help you need then things will get much worse. Take it from me, I suffer with Moderate Depression and Bipolar Depression. Once you get the proper care then you will realize that things are not as bad as they seem. I used to feel like that all the time but I did get the proper mental health care and I now have a much better out look on life. Things might seem bad now but you don't know what the future holds, your story is not over yet. You are NOT alone in this world. Don't give up--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 19:04, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm suffering through depression and feel the exact way. Go see a psychologist, see if you do, try to find the proper medicine, get a therapist, all the usual cliche tropes, but most importantly, Im not asking you to flat out do so, but at least try to have a sort of positive outlook. You are not alone, and it does get better. I go through mindsets as well, but its always better to make the most out of how things are.--Pokefrazer (talk) 04:49, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey, thanks everybody for the concern and everything. It really does mean a lot. I've got a couple of my friends in my life to talk to, but everything's just a bit complicated. I've booked in to see a psych in a couple weeks should be all right. (talk) 12:44, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

[edit] Is the word "privileged" even the right way to describe the disparity between the way "white males" and marginalized groups are treated?

This has been eating away at me, especially since I've been reading the wiki more in my little down time. I see the words "privilege" and "privileged" applied to anything having to do with a difference in the way a minority group is treated comparatively to (generally) "white males". Privilege is defined as; priv·i·lege priv(ə)lij/ noun 1. a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group of people. If privilege is a "special right or advantage", wouldn't "white privilege", or "male privilege", be a "special right" that only white people or males have? I never see whites or males being given special rights or privileges, I merely see them being treated the way that society should treat everyone. I've never seen whites or males being treated as "better" (in terms or rights or privileges alloted to them), I've just seen marginalized groups treated as worse (which of course shouldn't happen, they should be treated the same as whites and males). This wouldn't be too relevant, except that I think half the rage a lot of crazy alt-righters feel for phrases like "white privilege" and "male privilege" stems from the fact that they feel they're being accused of being given this special "birthright" that makes life a cakewalk, as opposed to just having their basic rights respected, which is what the marginalized groups lack. Anyway, I hope this isn't too big or confusing a wall of text to read, and I don't look too much like an idiot. megalodon (talk) 17:49, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

On the chance you aren't trolling...
"Privilege" is an academic (Sociology) idea that members of various demographics have advantages that they don't even have to think about, and have "privilege blindness" to others' problems because they simply have never had to experience those problems. True story; my brother was goofing around and lighting palm branches on fire, when he was caught by the police and given a warning. Had he been black, he probably would've had worse than a warning. Black people also have privileges that they don't think about, though these tend to be less 'valuable' than white privileges.
But outside of an academic system, it's often used as nothing more than a bludgeon by SJW to shut others up. Doesn't mean it isn't real. CorruptUser (talk) 18:54, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
(EC) This is useless semantics really. Where a minority group experiences disadvantage which the dominant group doesn't, there's an advantage/disadvantage dynamic between them. You're trying to recharacterise that as neutral/advantage, which doesn't really make sense as there's no neutral point. The dominant group is privileged by virtue of not having those disadvantages. Also important to remember that a lot of the discourse about privilege has to do with how it shapes our worldview & judgements about marginalised groups & issues which affect them more than us. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
The Weasel is also correct to point out that the dynamics of privilege pertain primarily to majority/minority interactions — it doesn't mean "white males vs everybody else". The sociological discussion on privilege gets framed incorrectly if the concept of privilege is set out as being "intrinsically opposed to white males" or anything like that. By which I mean, the Alt-right are jumping at shadows when they parade the notion of privilege as being akin to anti-racist is a code word for anti-white. It's not. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:12, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
When used polemically as opposed to descriptively, though, "privilege" is a particularly annoying bit of rhetoric that seems to mean little more than "you, shut up." The sociological framing of the idea pretty much renders futile any program to present privilege as a problem that requires some kind of remedy. It is inevitable that individuals and groups of people will be unequal. Worse, the greater "diversity" found in a society, the more ways appear for people to fall on the wrong side of the "privilege" lines. If privilege is a social problem that needs a solution, reducing "diversity" is the most obvious political stance it suggests, though most people who use "privilege" polemically don't want to spin it that way. The problem is not "privilege" so much as it is impossibly utopian egalitarianism. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 21:08, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
With the exception of underpopulation, all problems can be solved by killing enough people. The trick is to find a solution that doesn't involve crimes against humanity. CorruptUser (talk) 21:36, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Nothing that can't be fixed by a revised definition of 'human'. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 23:58, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Ah, see, I didn't know that privilege had a different definition in the sociological field (though I probably could have guessed that.) So if I'm understanding you guys right, it merely means an advantage a group has over another, correct? I'm quite the simple guy, so I'm not all that knowlagable in most of the topics I bring up. megalodon (talk) 00:54, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
It's a tad more complicated, it's more the institutional and de facto advantages members of a group enjoy in society. CorruptUser (talk) 02:32, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
I have a feeling most of the conflict about that word can be fixed by providing thorough and accessible education on what the word means and how it is supposed to be used. Unfortunately easier said than done. (talk) 13:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

A better description for this problem is "not as marginalized". The vast majority of people are marginalized to one extent or another...even in rich developed societies per race/class/gender/sexual-identity/religion,non-religion/physical-competence etc While a white working class male is certainly far less marginalized than an African-American female (sometimes vastly less marginalized) they might live in systemic white poverty, be LGTB, might be disabled, might suffer widely misunderstood mental problems etc.. Because of their own sense of marginalization (class, opressively-low income, lack of respect) they themselves don't feel particularly privileged and may be utterly baffled when told to "check their privilege" or not engage in a particular debate or participate in some group because of their "privilege" or that they cannot understand the plight of the truly marginalized because of their privilege. While this is technically true, I honestly think using "not as marginalized" instead of privilege does two things, it recognizes that we nearly all face some degree of marginalization and it removes the connotation that privileged people somehow enjoy a non-marginalized life which is not always the case. If you recognize someone else's marginalization and then point out the more severe marginalization you experience, that creates a lot better reception and sense of solidarity than using someone else's privilege as a reason to attack them, tell them they don't have a say, cannot understand or to not participate in a discussion or group or organization. (talk) 23:54, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

So are you saying privilege is like skin color? it's not a person's own doing, nor is it a moral failing? nobs 14:08, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I'd agree that having privilege shouldn't be a source of shame, and it shouldn't take away from any accomplishments you have. CorruptUser (talk) 15:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
It probably would have worked better if the sociologists had come up with an entirely new word for absence of "privilege", since it's usually the absence of "privilege" that seems to be the chief concern of those who use the jargon. The new sense is jarring to people used to the established meaning of the word privilege as a desirable and specific perquisite. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 17:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
This whole notion of privilege is a cultural phenomenea that's hard to pin on one person or a group of conspirators. And as a cultural phenomenea, it knows no color. In 1990 for example, Obama made a trip to Kenya to meet his brothers and sisters and family for the first time. He was dismayed that (1) whites recieved better service in restaurants in a majority black country, and (2) his own family treated him as white cause he was half white and the family intimacy he was longing for was lacking. He was critical of blacks for cowering to white privelege, not whites for assuming they had privilege. nobs 08:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

The entire concept falls all apart when you consider the fact that, globally speaking, non-hispanic whites actually ARE a minority population... if a minority population can somehow achieve privilege over a majority population... the privilege is proven to be one of your own making, whether individually or as a society, maximizing your advantages and minimizing your disadvantages are what creates privilege or superiority. Evolutionarily speaking, that which you might define as "privilege" is simply evolutionary gains. The United States in and of itself only has around 320 million people... which is effectively nothing compared to the global population of around 7 BILLION people... and yet the United States presently has enough collective military superiority to easily overwhelm the entire planet several times over just in aircraft carriers alone. The majority, the world, bends to the whims of the minority, the US, on a regular basis. Privilege is effectively what YOU make of it, you are in control of maximizing your advantages and minimizing your disadvantages... if you don't, it simply means you're inferior. --Onideus (talk) 19:44, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

"What's context? Who cares." --Onideus, apparently. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
You appear to have sequencing problems. --Onideus (talk) 20:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
You appear to have severe constantly-full-of-shit problems. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:46, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Trump protests

Are any of y'all joining any of the Women's Marches or other protests taking place around inauguration day next week? I may be at the Women's March on London. €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:52, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

The coalescing narrative coming into being is, the Democratic party has abandoned Trump opposition and can't be relied on in the near future to lead it, leaving opposition to the mob. Here's a caveat: the Tea Party & birthers didn't disrupt Obama's 15 minutes in the sun during his inaugural; the level of resentment these protestors intend to generate could be very problematic going forward. nobs 20:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake. Lord Aeonian (talk) 23:20, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
The plan is actually to not disrupt the inauguration, just boycott/ignore it. The women's march is scheduled for the next day. So what you're saying is BS. There was no question about the legitimacy of Obama's election except among racists (birtherists). Trump on the other hand can't open his mouth without insinuating the Russians did it. The Democrats (apparently in coordination with non-Democrat Bernie) for what it's worth scheduled nationwide protests to keep the ACA tomorrow (Jan. 14). Protesting the destruction of ACA too loudly might be a mistake, as it might be the only thing that would flip the red states in the next election, barring overt Russian blackmailing. Bongolian (talk) 02:10, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm just talking about inauguration day. While I've heard much discussion how Trump opponents need to study the Tea Party tactics, that's all well and good. But for the one day - inauguration day - they ought to just back off and let the Trump people celebrate. Nobody disrespected Obama on his big day. nobs 04:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
This is a rare moment I actually agree with nobs, I am shocked that I am actually typing this.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
The only people who have suggested disrupting the inauguration was a right-wing false flag operation. Hipocrite (talk) 21:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I dunno. Comet Ping Plng is back in the news. nobs 07:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

[edit] Formal and informal fallacies

I have been researching about fallacies for quite a while (using RW as my main source) and I thought emerged: what exactly is the difference between formal and informal fallacies? My first instinct was that formal fallacies are more... 'Formal' i.e. when someone uses them their argument is even worse than an informal fallacy. I'm very doubtful that's the case, so, if an if someone would be kind enough to explain I'd appreciate that. Additionally, sorry for not making a good case of my intelligence with what I initially thought was the difference between formal and informal fallacies :P. Thank you in advance :).--WMS (talk) 21:55, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

A formal fallacy is an error in the form of the argument. If you represent these arguments in a logical structure, you can point exactly to the place where the structure is invalid. It doesn't matter if the statements in the structure are true or false, which means the real-world knowledge included in the argument is completely irrelevant when discussing a formal fallacy. On the other hand an informal fallacy has a valid form logically but the flaw lies in the wrong usage of language, facts, empirical data etc. to reach a conclusion which either has no relation to the premises or the premises themselves being undeniably wrong. NameThatNobodyTakes () 10:50, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Here you go, friend. Th hug.gif TL;DR: Formal fallacies are when the problem is in the logical form (and not in the information contained). Informal fallacies are when the problem is in the information contained (and not in the logical form). In a sense; formal fallacies are illogical, while informal fallacies are irrational. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Ah, alright, I understand now. Thanks guys for explaining :).-WMS (talk) 18:28, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

[edit] Creation "Scientists"

I wonder how many of these supposed scientists (I mean ones who have actual qualifications and not absolute morons like Kent Hovind who has no clue how kindergarten level science works) actually believe in evolution but their minds are warped to the point that if they say anything about they will be considered a traitor to Christianity? I feel that may be the case because how could someone who took the time to study subjects like Biology, Astronomy or Geology be stupid enough to buy into a literal biblical worldview? I know there are plenty of scientists who hold religious beliefs but it is mind boggling that someone who holds a doctorate in Biology actually believes that a talking snake tricked two people.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:28, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Maybe they don't believe that part of the bible. ;)— CheeseburgerFace (talk) 01:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Most of the creationist "real scientists" (those with legitimate credentials in the field of biology/chemistry/geology) tend to acknowledge some parts of evolution (some even accept "macro" evolution) and/or an old Earth but still believe that it is directed by God, and that direction(design) can be empirically proven. In fact, downplaying the Judaeo/Christian aspects of that God is one of the key strategies for mainstreaming Creationism. Petey Plane (talk) 01:56, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Take a look at the page Lists of creationist scientists, which is a work-in-progress, mainly by FuzzyCatPotato. It will give you an idea of who they are, what they believe and what their qualifications are. Bongolian (talk) 02:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

[edit] Dembski weighs in

See the main article on this topic: Intelligent design

There are actually two different types, one being the arm chair Internet "scientist" who is largely only interested in pushing their religion onto others and/or desperately trying to keep their religion semi-relevant in the present era by affixing it to modern ideas/concepts/terminology. Sort of like what King James did with the Bible... and then later Thomas Jefferson... both of them basically rewrote the belief system to suit the, then, current era.

The other type though are actually interested in the potential likelihood that life was created by some higher intelligence or some higher dimensional life form. And there is actually a lot of evidence to support such a theory.

Here's some fun reading on the subject: https://www.facebook.com/OnideusIdeas/posts/1694202637559292

And, according to Lynn Zechiedrich, so far the evidence supports my theory... https://www.facebook.com/OnideusIdeas/photos/a.1654529898193233.1073741827.1654525018193721/1694542644191958/?type=3

I don't see how nature could just plop out a naturally evolving encoding algorithm intertwined into the quadnary coding scheme wrapped up into a double helix array. Every thing about our DNA screams "intelligent design". A literal Conway's Game Of Life incarnate if you will. Nature itself, evolution in general, is a bit sloppy for certain, hell humans have an "error ratio" of upwards of 40% when it comes to conception (the majority self-aborting within the first few weeks of life), but the underlying CORE, that is, the effective rule set if you will, is in direct oppositional contrast to that sloppy nature.

I myself wouldn't call it "God" so much, more likely some form of higher dimensional life seeking to "experiment" to see if intelligence/self-awareness can evolve within an overly limited tri-spatial plane of reality with a constrictive law/rule set. Much in the way we experimented to see if life could survive in the harshness of space by growing bacteria on the hull of the space spation. --Onideus (talk) 05:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Methinks you should read about abiogenesis. Current theories suggest that whatever the first living beings nature "plopped" out weren't very complex at all -- essentially glorified bubbles that were somewhat able to replicate. From there, it's a very very slow increase of complexity (and of replicative success) to current living beings, including humans. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 15:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
That doesn't necessarily explain the incongruity though between the sloppiness of nature/evolution/reproduction and the inherent complexity of the encoding system. Even if it does prove to be natural, we're talking about a self-evolving encoding scheme that's been in active formation for BILLIONS of years, essentially nature creating a kind of "God" itself. That's what I want, personally, I want that encoding scheme, presuming it exists. I want to try and crack it and create a binary converted copy of it for use in digital media compression. Unfortunately I have found that present genetics research is pretty lacking when it comes to actually mapping genetic structures, specifically the folds. From what Lynn Zechiedrich told me they basically create random computer models and then try and "correct" or make those models more accurate by feeding in new data as they manage to collect/measure it. Her specialty being the topology mapping. --Onideus (talk) 16:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Sometimes I wonder if what we see as our universe is in a computer of another? Not an actual computer program but a glitch that lasts a few seconds but we see as billions of years (Time Dilation). I am not supporting one specific faith, I am just tossing an idea out there--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, from a multi-dimensional perspective our very limited tri-spatial plane probably would be their effective equivalent of a computer system, not in a direct literal sense, but figuratively speaking. In such an environment though time might not actually exist at all, or at least not in a way we can perceive, meaning if we are a "glitch" it might be something much more horrible than you can imagine, like something similar to this...
--Onideus (talk) 17:18, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

[edit] THIS IS NOT A PARODY: "Godonomics", as endorsed by Mike Huckabee

I would call instant Poe's — but I can actually confirm that this is not a parody. What the holy hell, America (I could kiss ya!). Also, the endorsement from Huckabee was a nice touch.
Update: Just realized that Glenn Beck (among others) has also endorsed it. See the website. It is as if I'm stuck inside GTA V, surfing Rockstar's parody web!
Update: Also, let me point out that this nonsense is being put out by Chad Hovind. As in Kent Hovind. Well, that tears it — we officially need a stand-alone article on Godonomics and/or Chad Hovind! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
It's real. Sadly. CorruptUser (talk) 00:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Is it just awfully Swedish of me to be left completely jaw-dropped at the sight of all this, or is the above in fact outrageously effing over the top even by American standards? I mean, I consider myself fairly hardened when it comes to stuff like this. But seriously, I can barely tell the difference between the above and stuff like this. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Being from New England, where this sort of thing is long gone, it's extremely depressing that these clowns are actually part of the same country as me. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:56, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Reminds me of the old joke. A priest, a minister, and a rabbi are arguing about how much to donate.
Priest: "We draw a circle on the ground, through the money in the air, and whatever God pushes into the circle is what we donate"
Minister: "No, what God pushes outside the circle is what He wants us to donate"
Rabbi: "Just throw the money in the air and whatever God wants, He'll keep" CorruptUser (talk) 04:17, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
A vicar (CofE priest) finds his wife going through the offerings tray.
'What are you doing?'

'Looking for a button for your shirt.' (talk) 16:49, 16 January 2017 (UTC) (This was the pre-women priests and gay marriage version: adapt to suit.) (talk) 17:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Isn't Jesus the one who said that we should own things in common and rich should give to the poor ? Maybe God is tired of his hippie commie son and decided to create his own economics with free-market ? This family keeps getting weirder and weirder. Diacelium (talk) 00:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

[edit] The issue has been allot more personal.

I was never told to hate anything, at least I wasn't personally instructed to by my parents. For the most part, they tried to keep me out of politics and debating with atheists. Frankly, sitting at church and hearing their drivel on evolution is painful. I didn't listen to any recorded seminars, frankly passing my biology and marine biology class is enough for me to tell that their arguments are made up. My dad keeps talking about atheists, and I don't want to go into detail about how arrogant he sounds. How much just listening to him in the car, just me and him pisses me off. Of course, if I was to argue with him, he would lynch me with his own belt. Maybe by dragging me by the back of the truck.

This didn't used to be the case, and frankly, I've had to put up with much worse. Junior year in high school was terrible because of one guy. He was an atheist, and was a stereotypical one. Actually it was two of them. When I introduced myself, because I tried to make friends, I was greeted in an unconventional way. I did say I came from a religious family, and despite being Filipino, I was called a redneck. Whenever I tried to make a statement, they always cut me off, and avoid the subject, offing me as a retard. Even making allot of incest jokes around me. They always laughed at me. I never trusted authorities, they never solved anything. I never talked to my parents, they came up with terrible solutions and yelled at me. I never talked to any one else. I knew it would only lead to the same result. I was told that because I was religious, that I was always going to be nothing more than an idiot.

Worst part about it was how well I was doing in school by then. I wasn't amazing, but I never failed a class, As and Bs, with something lower occasionally. Ironically enough Marine Biology was my strong point. I was silent about it. I was self deprecating anyhow, because calling myself shit head, redneck, incestuous, and what have you made everyone laugh at me. Made me happy until they started calling me that frequently. Which they did.

So go ahead. Tell me about how arrogant I am, how much this is all made up. Do it. I'm just a dumb, religious redneck after all, am I? — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

It doesn't sound like you're "arrogant" or "dumb" or a "redneck". Would it be correct to, respectfully, call you "religious"? Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 07:56, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Goodpost.gifYeah! dumb redneck is a description of a trope not reality. I know people like to label things and make sweeping generalisations. Anyway could you describe how that stereotypical Atheist behaved? If i may take a guess:New atheist for when asswipes realise that Christianity has a humanist core and want to be edgy.
Anyway if you want to stay here you are welcome to do so. If you are looking for fellow Christians who value you as a person then please consider visiting:redletterchristians. Have a nice day, and don't let your surroundings drag you down!--Benaresh (talk) 09:29, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
What do you say when an atheist sneezes? nobs 08:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Personal tools