RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive388

The surge of COVID cases in India goes to show how ineffective their "traditional medicine" is.........
https://news.yahoo.com/india-coronavirus-record-deaths-virus-090019035.html

Maybe if India issued lockdowns, went with evidence based medicine and wore masks then this would not be an issue. I do find it funny how conspiracy theorists cite the supposed declining number of COVID infections without masks in Texas.

This shows why evidence based medicine is absolutely imperative for treating disease. --Agimi i Apokalipsit (talk) 21:24, 2 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Imagine having so little self-awareness that you register a sock to blame Indians here for being “irresponsible” despite most of the West, especially the US, being absolutely horrible right now because no one here gives a fuck about anyone else and everybody has a toddler-like rejection of anybody asking them to help others. Conservatives and anti-science idiots are why the West is dying. You have to be fucking retarded. 22:47, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Uh is this directed at Rationalzombie? 22:52, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No, the rando who you reverted. 22:58, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, well, don't respond to them, and try not using the r-word. 23:03, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * ec. the current surge in india has similar reasons, more or less, as every other country that has had problems in managing the pandemic has had at some point - not locking down soon enough or lifting restrictions too early and severe shortages essential medical supplies as hospitals are overwhelmed. india had until recently handled things very well, better than most. well enough to get complacent and be taken by surprise from this new wave and new variant. i dare say that owes alot to economic and political pressure to things back to 'normal'. thats the same story as much of the rest of the world, to varying degrees.


 * i had been very surprised/impressed even, that india, until this new surge, managed things so well during their first wave. i thought just the sheer mass of humanity in india would make lockdowns a challenge, and self isolating just impossible within poorer densely populated urban slums. an assumption from my own ignorance. im pleased i was wrong there. it makes this second wave seem all the more tragic, but i guess really just more of the same tragedy this pandemic has brought the world.


 * i feel the original post to be a little mean spirited over this surge, a little too much gloating over rising death rates. it would still have been insensitive if it had anything to do with a reliance on traditional medicines, but it really hasnt. thats just wrong. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:11, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay I was a bit rude. I won't deny it but one former Indian government official (https://news.yahoo.com/india-covid-19-fact-checking-235501214.html) has suggested using lemons as a means for raising oxygen levels. Some doctors in India have urged people to use dubious treatments as well. I can forgive the general population but not medical professionals who should know better (that might be mean too, sorry). --Agimi i Apokalipsit (talk) 23:25, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There were other, additional human-caused circumstances making the Indian resurgence much worse than it could have been:
 * Field hospitals were dismantled nationwide following the first wave for no apparent reason other than BJP bravado. There was apparently a widespread belief among the BJP politicians that India had reached herd immunity; this was despite only a 2% current vaccination rate.
 * Large political rallies were allowed by the election commission preceding and during the second wave, including large BJP rallies.
 * The massive Kumbh Mela religious gathering (9 million people) was allowed to proceed.
 * India probably does have sufficient oxygen production capacity if it is sufficiently coordinated. Instead, there were reports of private households hoarding gas cylinders, thus hindering oxygen production where it was needed.
 * Indian journalist Barkha Dutt has been doing some excellent reportage on the pandemic. Her interview by BBC News last week was amazing. Bongolian (talk) 23:31, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I've seen in several European countries and I have found in some cities (Madrid or Brussels) people being very responsible with masks and relatively responsible with social distancing and isolation while in other cities (Amsterdam and London) people being ridiculously reckless and not giving a shit about masks except maybe in shops and on the underground (maybe) and less of a shit about social distancing and isolation. Having previously spent a few months in India doing development projects and seeing the enormous cultural differences from one state to another...I have little doubt they are more careful and the government is more strict in a state like Maharashtra and are a lot more reckless in a state like Bihar. I am sure there are places in India which are equally as responsible and reckless as in Europe (or say comparing Florida (very bad) with California (a lot better). Shabi  DOO  23:38, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, California sucks too. All of America does. We’re a dying, decaying society and COVID is just letting us see the signs. 00:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Connecticut looks relatively sane from here. I mean, far from perfect, but way ahead of most of the country; New England in general is leading the charge for vaccines. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい ) 01:21, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe they’ll be lucky enough to survive the 476 our Roman Empire is rapidly approaching. I doubt it though. 02:40, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a somewhat unfair representation of the consequences of a somewhat poor nation with extremely dense population not being able to keep an outbreak of a highly contagious disease contained indefinitely. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 02:16, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes and no. India's government was known for under-counting in the past, so past "success stories" Modi liked to tout were possibly a bit "tainted" to begin with. In the past, India's government was known for pushing bullshit herbalism in the past, something that has been a strong part of Modi's "Hindu nationalism". I think a little of that has fueled part of the current crisis. Granted, I don't think Modi's been as bad as Trump or Bolsonaro at mismanaging the pandemic, and there are limits of what one can do in a developing economy like India. But it seems like from what I can tell, the root cause of this recent wave is that India's government, who, failed to take it seriously this year, a and started holding massive gatherings like Kumbh Mela or political rallies without proper social distancing. The pandemic isn't over yet, as Modi is finding out. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 12:10, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, no, right wing governments have shit the bed everywhere, and I don't mean to excuse their handling of covid as sound or good compared to what standards have been set in other countries with similar conditions(i.e. China makes the most sense as a direct comparison to India). Just that it's a little unfair to blame india having a uniquely bad traditional medical system, when public health and treating individual diseases are not the same thing.  By way of comparison, China has one of the most culturally ingrained and insane traditional medical systems in the world and did comparatively well because they implemented solid public health controls.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:14, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Squirrel in a woodchipper
Would a piranha eat whatever comes out of sticking a squirrel in a woodchipper? I was just wondering. Revenant Raven (talk) 14:30, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * When piranhas eat squirrels they prefer them frappéd in a blender (fur removed before hand) with a dollop of yoghurt and low-fat soy milk added. Shabi  DOO  17:02, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * In point of fact piranhas have an undeserved reputation for ferocity. They don't automatically strip anything living to the bone. I have, in fact, tested this by swimming the Amazon when there were piranhas nearby.  Our local guide was happy to do the same.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:49, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Depends on the species, but the great majority really don't want anything to do with humans. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい ) 23:54, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * what the hell kind of question is this Princess Mononoke radio contact 07:04, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I have a better question. Why are you bent on chipping squirrels? Kencolt (talk) 01:27, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * ... why would a piranha eat anything that comes out of a woodchipper to begin with? TheJakeHolmesVersion (talk) 13:24, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * They are scavengers, though if hungry they will attack an injured animal. Their bite may be extremely powerful, but it's slow and not meant for catching anything that can fight back.  So if there's squirrel chunks, they'd eat it. CorSock (talk) 13:56, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

My sleepy thoughts on North Korea
Invade it before haircut boy gets too many nukes. He's going to launch someday or the other; right now NATO missile shields might *just* block all his nuclear warheads if we take him by surprise, but if he builds up to some 100+ warheads and then launches later on, some cities in Korea and Japan will be no more. Best to launch a surprise invasion and finish him off. Meow Purr 07:45, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no chance that Kim Jong-un would launch nukes at another major nuclear state, or any state for that matter. Such an act would ensure his death and the destruction of his state. The advantage he has from nukes is from possessing them - not using them.  However, if "someone" were to invade NK then the chances of a nuclear response from NK would be very high, because Kim Jong-un would then personally have very little left to lose. Your suggestion would produce the very situation you wish to avoid.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * the whole point of nukes for nk is any attack on them would devastation for neighbours - south korea, and depending on their tech, japan. the us are unlikely to be troubled, but even without working missles, just detonating a nuke on the border with the south the death toll would be horrific. they are super paranoid about the us invading since forever, and china has become less reliable a safeguard against american aggression than it once was for them. states like north korea have no defence against us, nuke or no nuke. if china looked the other way, the state nk is in, it would not last long. much is made of n korean paranoia, but with warnings of imminent destruction from mouths of us presidents, and, you know, iraq, the already paranoid must have been amped up for most the century thus far. it would have been messy before but now? its not the us in the firing the line. it would cost its allies dearly for american bravado.
 * missles tests in n korea and claims of an ability to strike the us directly are not convincing. tests are not a warning to the us, they are kim asking to have a chat. they say while everyone knows the us is safe from direct harm, military action - invasions or drone strikes, is now out. they say we know testing makes the us public anxious demanding action that risks escalation, but cant be ignored. what to do. our economy is tanking says kim. lets make a deal. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:49, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * All leaders, be they the sweetest huggable democratic leaders or the most brutal dictators...do 95%+ of what they do in order to stay in power (and/or assist their party's long term prospects and/or further their life long interests). You should view 95% of political decision making through this lens. When it comes to foreign policy I would say 100% of their decisions is motivated by this. Any action that will threaten their hold on power is avoided at all costs (unless not doing it costs more). As Bob_M points out well above...sending out a nuke unprovoked = the end of Kim staying in power. Thus there is virtually no chance he, or anyone in their government will do it. Not even a long-shot rival trying to take power would try it, or encourage it because it would mean their demise as well. I would say in terms of all international relations at the moment, one of the safest bets you could possibly make is Kim not sending off one of his nukes short of being invaded. Shabi  DOO  20:04, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Small question: are you okay with having millions of deaths on your hands? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:49, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Kim Jong Un isn't going to launch nukes. Period. He wants them so he can force other countries to the bargaining table internationally and to strengthen his image as a strong leader domestically. There is no realistic scenario where he actually uses the damned things. US policy towards North Korea should remain as it is, polite indifference/mild condemnation. 15:58, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The politest response I have here is that this is an idiotic idea. 22:50, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe it was idiotic - I was just dropping my unfiltered thoughts. The main thing was that if all sorts of petty dictators here and there started getting nukes, one of them (at least some, as a rule, go bonkers sometimes) would end up pressing the button - eg. Pol Pot was idiotic enough to try invading Vietnam. Meow Purr 15:36, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * thats probably a reason why as a rule the international community is generally against the idea of nuclear proliferation. north korea is the only regime in recent years that has acquired a nuke, with questionable. reliability. they didnt pick it up down the market either, they've been working on it since the 1980. materials, tech and know are tightly controlled. iran is the only nation who both feel the need for a nuke and has the ability to produce one sanctions are place to hamper there efforts. a new nuclear is required to halt it completely. there isnt anyone else who who have ability or inclination to build a bomb. there are few who could probably afford to especially when they hit with sanctions. and potentially decades long commitment to bear fruit, if at all. wont do no good in a border dispute. nor in a civil war. there are no crazy tyrants running rogue states who is going to surprise the world with a nuclear arsenal. if there is an equivalent of pol pot today, theres no chance in hell of gaining nuclear weapon unless they found it down the back of sofa.
 * you stop petty dictators from nuking everyone by making sure they cannot get hold of the things in first place. because once they have been acquired you've missed the boat for military intervention. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:36, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

North Korea
North Korea is a weak agrarian economy under severe trade sanctions that has limited allies. They can try to remedy this situation in several ways. A), they can try to leverage military might (won't work, too small and too dicey even if it wasn't). B), they can try to leverage trade goods (won't work, they mostly just have rice). C), they can try to leverage intelligence assets (won't work, they don't have any internationally), D), they can try to leverage general international influence (won't work, they don't have the clout or IOUs). Or E), they can try to leverage nuclear weapons capabilities. The last one is their best bet since it also works to keep the population loyal domestically while forcing foreign leaders to take them seriously and open negotiations. 16:24, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Plus, Iraq and Libya and many others show what happens when US-unfriendly dictatorships don’t have nukes. Bush and his idiot warmonger supporters from both parties inadvertently made the best possible case in favor of Third World proliferation. Yee-haw! 22:49, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The flip side to that, of course, is small to medium-sized states hoping to initiate a nuclear weapons programme know they're opening themselves up to a whole world of economic / diplomatic pain unless they somehow manage to swerve the repercussions until they've developed viable warheads and the ICBMs to deliver them them. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 00:09, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If I remember correctly that is what happened to both India and Pakistan. They developed their nuclear weapons, withstood the economic heat for a decade or so, and then were accepted back into the international community when other more pressing issues arose.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 06:50, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * All true, but it's not like Kim sees much of a choice in the matter. He wants to stay in power and build up North Korea as a regional power. This is his best bet to achieve those goals. 01:10, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I have a question for anyone who might know
Last week I was walking in the park (like I usually do) and I went to walk past a car (this is relevant to my question). A fat old guy gets in my way so I turn in another direction. Then the guy walks towards me so I continue on a slightly different direction. I goes to the one portion of the park to hit a Pokestop (PokemonGO). After I put my phone back in my pocket this dude drives up beside me and starts yelling loudly. I took my earbud out of my ear and he was making claims about me sneaking around his car when I was walking past it (no different from moving through cars in a parking lot). He did not let me explain my side of the story at all. Every other word from his mouth was vulgar. After a heated exchange the guy drives off and I could hear him yell still.

Is it weird that initially I laughed it off but now I am very paranoid? --Agimi i Apokalipsit (talk) 01:38, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No. I think laughing it off is a natural reaction to a situation I'd consider pretty tense and stressful. I've had instances where I laughed but I got stressed just thinking about it later. I guess the guy is just having a very bad day, got paranoid for whatever reason, and is taking it out on you. I feel rationalizing what happened that way can at least make you feel more at peace. But whenever you see hostility like that, yeah, just avoid him and let him go away as soon as you can. I'm not sure if you responded to him within your description of "a heated exchange", it didn't seem like you did since he didn't let you explain, but I guess just apologize and give him distance and move on? 01:42, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Lots of bitter old cunts on the streets these days. Don’t take it personally. Instead, pity the poor hospice workers who will at some point have to take their shit all the time. 14:27, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I play PoGo and also Ingress (which for those who don't know also involves you walking around holding your phone). A while ago a guy somewhat aggressively asked me why I was taking photographs of all the parked cars. I tried to explain things and I think he understood. But people assume weird things when they see you looking intently at your phone while it it pointed vaguely near them or their property.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:02, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Rich people
They exist, they have money, they donate to numerous PACs, and they are still getting wealthier. All while many people are still going on welfare. — Jeh2ow Damn son!  12:20, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure the amount of money donated to PAC's in the last election cycle could eliminate child poverty, but you know freedom or something.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 16:25, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Eliminate? Maybe not quite.  Elimination is tricky.  Address it temporarily for several months, for sure.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:59, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think those PACs get a grand total of $300m/year. A lot of money, but then again, not a whole lot.  If given to only the bottom 10% (amount below Fed poverty line), they would only receive an extra $10/yr, which wouldn't exactly end poverty.
 * If we were really serious about ending poverty, we'd get rid of the poverty traps in our welfare system. Seriously, the rich will bitch endlessly about how a marginal income tax of 40% prevents them from working harder, but are silent on how the phase-out of welfare benefits results in effective marginal tax rates that are nearly 100%. CorSock (talk) 18:10, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Nah, 2020 alone was close to 15 billion in on-the-table PAC spending. Under-the-table super-pacs are harder to measure, but at least a few billion more.  I think the 300 million number you're talking about was the official candidate campaign spending(both sides spent about that much).  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:57, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * BUT, how do we get them to feel good about contributing their capital? There is the assumption that branding local is going to inject money into small business, but that's led to gentrification.  American Libertarians say things like "I love grandmas, everyone is going to pay for everyone's grandma, we can't trust the government to keep our grandmas alive" and pretend like their excess money will altruistically go to nursing homes.  But it doesn't work like that.  People pay out the ass to keep their grandmas alive.  I don't get why it's so painful to pay into the system that lets you get so wealthy.  Like, OK, somehow scrappin and scrapin by, cutting coupons, you're only making 390,000 a year.  And a lot of that is tied up in property, so that 390K is going to two house payments, an RV, a boat and college funds and at least HALF of those are gambles!  The 145K you're just subsisting on can't be fucked with, it's the money you might have to spend to maintain your shit if your income suddenly disappeared.   I  get it, I have to really try hard to keep some excess rent money on hand. Just in case, you know, I need a minute to sort out my living situation.   Why even fight for a pay raise in Biden's America when it would up your bracket in such a disgusting thieving manner?  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:55, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * They shouldn't need an argument to feel good. Everyone should contribute based on their wealth, not income annually. Additionally, my taxes goes mostly to forever wars, and corn subsidies when I would prefer it goes to schools and healthcare, but that is what Congress has decided.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 17:52, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I mean, I agree completely, but these are people who think everybody probably has $10K set aside. I have always thought campaign money should be spent on public works.  I had a friend that worked for a local gubernatorial runoff, and I suggested "Take that money, work with some construction crews, fix a few roads and put up signs saying 'road fixed by' or something to that extent."  He looked me in the eye and said "You really think an election is going to be won by going out and, pat patting some potholes?" in a way that made me feel so small and wrong.  And I said "Yes.  I mean, at least if you lose, you can say something got done." and he just laughed and blew me off completely. But I still think there should be at least an effort by politicians to spend campaign donations on public works, it would benefit them to inform potential voters as to what their priorities are and show they are able to use some money to make things happen.  And I have a good retrospective joke for that, "Today the potholes, TOMORROW THE WORLD" like I get it, but they lost, and things aren't getting done, so what did all that money go to? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 01:40, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

May the 4th be with you all
Obligatory Star Wars day post. Next year the first film will be 45, which is pretty wild to me, someone who wasn't even alive when it came out. Anyway, what's your favorite piece of EU media? I always liked the Rebels series.
 * The 1985 Ewoks cartoon. Spud (talk) 14:32, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * KOTOR. The very first proper video game I ever played. It was old then, and didn't have the shiny new graphics of the latest COD installment that all my friends were playing, but I didn't care. IveBeenFrank (talk) 14:51, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * it was my birthday yesterday. born 1977. i am the same age as star wars, (it premiered 25th of may, but close enough) return of the jedi was the first film i ever saw at the cinema. had plenty of the toys, subscribed to marvel star wars comic until that ended. super pumped for when prequels came out. then i saw the first. something died that day.
 * i am the same age as star wars and there is no joy left in the world.


 * have a lovely day everyoneAMassiveGay (talk) 14:52, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The Wraith Squadron novels. Allston's style has been a major influence in my writing because of those. 108.86.12.38 (talk) 14:57, 4 May 2021 (UTC)


 * ...  and today is revenge of the Fifth Aloysius the Gaul 22:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I never really caught the Star Wars love bug. I was too young to know why 4-6 were mind-blowing for filmmaking and then too old to actually care about 1-3.  I can tell you Super Star Wars on the SNES was a load of horseshit, first level is fine, second level is pointless but fine, but do you know how long I spent trying to platform into the fucking Sandcrawler?  The level was timed, my time on the Super Nintendo was timed, there are no save files or continues, and it's designed specifically to cheap assedly put you all the way on the ground so you have to platform the whole thing again.  Which would be fine, if you could survive the inside of the Sandcrawler and beat some hot sand boss, which I did, like, once or twice, with either no lives left or my turn at the SNES being over.  Grim Fandango is one of my "This game is perfect" formative games, though.  Monkey Island 4 was also very good, I actually used note cards to find prosthetics and navigate and chart out Monkey combat, I was stoked when the originals came out on the 360 arcade to see where it started. LucasArts seems like a very polished studio. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:04, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Underrated comment. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい ) 02:44, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Wouldn't the presence of conspiracy theorists on the internet actually disprove said conspiracies?
One of the most striking things to me about conspiracy theorists is the fact that they claim to have all this wonderful "secret information" that "THEY" don't want you to know. Only problem with that; how are they getting away with "exposing" said conspiracy? YouTube full of literally thousands if not millions of YouTube videos all "exposing" the New World Order/Illumaniti/etc, and YouTube (owned by Google) is frequently cited as being in kahoots with the alleged "powers that be".

So this got me thinking; wouldn't the very actual presence of conspiracy theorists in itself actually serve as disproof of such theories? And for obvious reasons, I am ignoring the "Of course not, because that's what they WANT you to think!" escape hatches. Aaronmichael5 02:46, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, it depends. Is it more likely that there will be many conspiracy theorists for a conspiracy that doesn't exist or for one that does exist? Even if 99% of false conspiracy theories have many believers, the fact that there are many believers would still be evidence that the conspiracy is real if, on those rare occasions when the conspiracy is real, it was more than 99% likely to have many believers. The presence of believers would only be evidence against the truth of the theory if people are more likely to believe in false conspiracies than real ones, and it isn't clear that this is actually the case. Note that while the ratio of true to false conspiracy theories does matter in deciding whether a given conspiracy is true, it does not matter in determining whether the existence of believers is evidence for or against.
 * The kind of thinking you are putting forward actually verges on the conspiratorial. If nobody believes a conspiracy theory, this would not seem to be evidence that it is true (in fact, it would seem to be evidence that it is false: come up with any random conspiracy you can think of: nobody else has thought of it, so nobody else believes it, and it is almost certainly false). But if a lack of belief is not evidence for, the presence of belief cannot be evidence against, or else our reasoning is very similar to "a lack of evidence is evidence of (a conspiracy)." 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒  talk  03:34, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think he's just pondering how conspiracy nuts rationalize their consiracies to themselves. For instance, do famous comspiracy psuhers like Alex Jones or David Icke ever wonder why they haven't been 'disappeared' by the Illuminati for exposing them yet? If your answer is 'that would backfire because them being disappeared who convince more people the conspiracies are true' than think about why the Illuminati ever allowed them to grow to popularity in the first place. Aaron is just acknowleding that the Illuminati is strangely okay with being exposed and consiracy theorists don't seem to find that odd. Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 05:12, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * surely shape shifting lizards could disappear icke and just replace him with a shape shifting lizard that can do convincing enough icke no one would know hes gone? then lizard icke can set about ruin his reputation so no one cares when lizard icke stage his death and returns to base. or maybe they those reptilians engineered all over conspiracy theories and have agents creating more and spreading them till icke is just another crazy conspiracist among millions of others conspiracists so everyone is too distracted look close enough into ickes claims and see hes right they are all reptiles. i bet the reptilians are always coming down to laugh in his face that no one will ever believe him, then vanish just before they discovered by someone else. 'they were just here,why dont you believe me?' sure david, they were just there like they were last week and the week before that. shape shifting reptilians is patently ridiculous. its the mole men in the hollow earth running the show. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:12, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If we're considering what the conspiracy theorists think, I think we have to consider the escape hatches. Off the top of my head, I would say "the conspirators deliberately release information about themselves and let people report on it freely. That way, when nothing happens to the people releasing the truth, it discredits the theory, and allows the conspirators to continue conspiring." The thing is, to believe in a conspiracy theory in the first place, you have to already have some pretty absurd evaluations of the evidence; what's one more? 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒   talk  12:36, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You think they use their grey cells? They'd probably come up with something like "look, this is the way the establishment deludes people into a sense of security, so WAKE UP SHEEPLE" etc. Meow Purr 15:40, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Some of the more reasonable conspiracy theorists (relatively speaking) believe the government spread ridiculous “the queen is a shapeshifting lizard” ideas fo distract from and discredit the real stuff. I wouldn’t be surprised that this tactic has been employed in reality, a common believable example is that “UFOs are aliens” is a cover story for what they often actually are — highly advanced prototype drones/aircraft that various militaries want kept a secret. Christopher (talk) 15:47, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * And mind you the classification of conspiracy theory is wide enough to include ideas like "The US government helped orchestrate a coup in Chile to ouster Allende" which at worst is a Hanlon's razor situation and doesn't include much counter-factual or horrendous leaps of logic, nor some need by the nominal conspirators to suppress all evidence or dissent. Which, in my opinion, separates a third tier of conspiracy theory, beyond "insane" and "comparatively reasonable", where there's a preponderance of easily verified evidence, but no certainty.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:20, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * the shape shifting lizard people as a government spread distraction doesnt seem work to me. the ufos as a cover story for people spotting secret test aircraft there is something people are seeing that the government doesnt want people talking about. the lizard people doesnt cover anything up. what would we be discussing if the queen was not a shape shifter? everything else icke has said is new age pap and all the same conspiracy theories as everyone else, only with shape shifting reptilians as the shadowy one world government. its no different to far right conspiracy theories except it jews that say are behind everything. alot of ickes stuff is just rehashed theories from the same antisemetic sources which is why icke is accused being an antisemite and say reptilian is a code for jew, as do the far right agree and reference icke's lizard people when they mean jews. i dont get why people give ickes nonsense any kind of thought at all. he was laughing stock who claimed to be the son of god, now he says shape shifting lizard creatures run the show. clearly he was off his nut before, but shape shifting lizards make perfect sense. now hes speaker at antilockdown rallys with 5g causes covid bullshit cheered by a crowd of dumbfucks who think the shape shifting lizard guy gives their cause credibility.

how did a lunatic laughing stock go to being a perennial and respected presence in conspiracy theory circles when he should have gone from a lunatic to still a lunatic at the first mention of shape shifters? AMassiveGay (talk) 23:36, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no question in Icke's case that the shape shifting lizard people is a ridiculous front to try and "cover" (badly) the usual anti-Semitic tropes. Just because one mishmashes the typical "lizard people" conspiracies with the New Age (but more optimistic) poppycock like the Pleiadians, and adds it to the blood libel / Illuminati crap, does not make it less so. My "surface impression" is as a result of the New Age influence, he is a little less noxious then a typical conspiracy theorist (there's a lot of "spirit" and "love" drops and other surface-level "optimism" in his rhetoric), and thus his "popularity" might be due to attracting a bit of a "horseshoe" crowd from the left and others who wouldn't necessarily dig the toxic behavior of the alt-right. I never know with any of these conspiracy guys just how sincere they are, or whether they are trend-jumping and only in it for the money. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 02:51, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

You are right that the existence of a vast number of videos revealing the "secret truth" that the Earth is flat or that we never went to the Moon should logically make people wonder how "secret" this truth is. But conspiracy theorists are not well-known for their critical thinking skills. The question which most conspiracy theories fail at is "who benefits?" What is the benefit of hiding the fact the Earth is flat? Only today I had the misfortune to meet someone who told me that the whole Covid 19 pandemic is a lie. When asked "Why does the global conspiracy exist?" he had no coherent answer. Joined-up thinking is not a sign of the conspiracy minded.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 19:47, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I have a feeling that things will heat up in the West Bank
https://www.newsweek.com/hamas-leader-sends-final-warning-israel-not-evict-palestinians-east-jerusalem-homes-1588910

Considering that last week the Israeli settlers chanting "death to Arabs", violently attacking Palestinians and people against the occupation along with Israel's refusal to leave occupied territory- violence will likely happen.

I am aware that the Palestinians will be labeled terrorists if they fight back. Funny how when Israel kicks people off their land it is called "settling" yet when people fight back it is "terrorism". Double standards are a feature of far right authoritarianism though. --Agimi i Apokalipsit (talk) 20:47, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * double standards are a feature of all humans - it is always different when "they" do it compared to when "we" do it. Pretty naïve of you (or biased?) to say it's only far right authoritarians who have them! Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 21:26, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Chill. It is true that humans have double standards but it seems to be more common among authoritarians. Probably should have used different wording. --Agimi i Apokalipsit (talk) 21:31, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * But maybe Lapid can form a government. Kevs  Ping!  05:58, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Rose McGowan says Democrats are in a deep cult

 * Rose McGowan says Democrats are in a deep cult

If Democrats are in a cult, what is the best way to deprogram them? Falkner (talk) 04:40, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Cool Story, bro. Revolverman (talk) 11:47, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * As someone who registered as Independent when I reached the age of majority, and yet consistently votes Democrat in elections, and always in national elections, maybe the best way would be to stop considering it an "us versus them" and be able to think critically about the people in power, rather than just froth at the mouth. It's not black and white, Hillary Clinton, as secretary of state, had to be stopped on the Keystone pipeline, she actually committed a crime by telling TransCanada they could go ahead and start construction, no fucking weird child trafficking or lesbian political deals, people are such maniacs.  I still voted for her, because Donald Trump also needed to be stopped on the Keystone pipeline.   At the highest level of politics in America, we are voting for liars and grifters.  Since it is my personal responsibility to vote, I would vote for any liar or grifter by default, but they would have to have some level of responsibility.  I assume that's where my vote is going.  To assume that Democrat voters are in a deep cult, and to use a Fox News clip as a reference really bums me out.  McGowan never endorsed the right, but was careful when she almost compared Republicans to Democrats.  That's how dogwhistling works.  Populism put Trump in office, but the weird thing is it's not because everyone who voted for him is insane, it's that the Republicans that expected Trump to do Republican things voted for him anyway.  And he became a Republican that increased the national debt by 8 trillion.  That's not how Republicans traditionally spend.  So, Donald Trump, fake Republican, also not performing his responsibilities to his voters, and they somehow don't care.  That's cultish.  I don't interact with a lot of actual factual democrats, so I wouldn't see the cult end of that side, but yeah, I'll vote blue as long as the GOP continues to collect dollars from people and uses them to specifically protect institutions that already collect dollars from people.  I understand there is a business class that can get hurt by not having cheap labor.  I also understand that there is a business class that requires a cheap labor force. I think it's pretty nonsensical to assume the business class cares what happens to any single member of the labor force once they reach a level of financial stability that would make their labor expensive to purchase.  I see it, personally, as impractical and naive to vote on party lines.  Oversimplified: I just vote against the worse liar.  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 09:29, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That was painful bullshit to listen to. Calling the democrats or republicans a "cult" is ridiculous hyperbole. I wouldn't even call some far left or far right European parties "cults". The democratic party isn't even proposing remotely radical political changes by the standards of the rest of the Western world and the fact that even elected Democrats or Republicans and some of the heads of the parties are married to people who belong to the other party is pretty much proof this isn't the case. The solution isn't deprogramming anyone but America over coming its toxic two party system (so toxic that a party even making moderate changes is seen as the machinations of evil). Shabi  DOO  14:01, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd definitely call a few far-left parties cults, but the two that immediately come to mind are in the US. 14:47, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Politics in the US is increasingly cultlike. It's easiest to see in the opposing side of course.  The Republican party is addled with the apocalyptic nonsense of the evangelical sects.  Many people on the left have so sacralized their politics that they can't bear to hear their beliefs contradicted, and they reach instinctively for the boycott and shunning tactics of wounded piety.  Failure to follow doctrine on either side makes you an unregenerate sinner. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 15:36, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * And here is George Bush saying Republicans "want to be extinct". Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:16, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Signs politics is becoming more cultlike:

1: Both Trump/Obama had cult of personality like followings.

2. In cults, the leader is above the law. Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon (Cynics say the Democrats/Republicans are two headed, one party system). Hillary/Bill Clinton were not punished for their "pay to play activities with the Clinton Foundation, Hillary's email scandal, etc. Hunter Biden and Joe Biden are not being punished for their for pay to play activities. Twitter suppressed New York Post story about Hunter Biden's laptop.

3. Cults penalize people for leaving. There are reports of people leaving the Democrat Party and losing friends (African-Americans losing friends for becoming Republicans, etc.). People losing friends or family relationships during Thanksgiving dinners due to political discussions.

4. Cults indoctrinate. News organization are more partisan today and there are now 24 hour news channels. An aunt of mine watched CNN all day during her retirement and an uncle of mine did the same with Fox News. That is a lot of potential ideological brainwashing/indoctrination.

5. Dishonoring the family unit is sign of being in a cult. After the Capital Building riot, people were reporting family and friends to the FBI. Reuters ran the story 'You are no longer my mother': A divided America will struggle to heal after Trump era. People didn't often disown their mothers in previous eras due to politics.

6. Cults discourage critical thinking. Political discussions are now getting a lot more heated than in the past. Many times when people become excessively emotional, they turn off critical thinking. Schools tend to culturally/politically/ideologically indoctrinate students. Despite factory jobs disappearing and automation/AI causing people to lose their jobs, there is not a bigger emphasis on teaching students critical thinking skills, logic, etc.

7. Cults engage in us vs. them and conspiratorial thinking. The right has more conspiracy thinking than in the past. The left has cancel culture and Trump/Russian collusion fanaticism.

8. Cults are elitists and believe they have all the answers to life's problems. There is less bipartisanship between Democrats/Republicans now.

9. Cult members are fanatical. On the left, they are trying to inject politics/ideology in everything (sports, work, etc.). Evangelicals are injecting politics more in church than in the past. There were Trump is going to be reelected "prophecies". Sid Roth, an evangelical ministry leader, said God appeared to be telling him that the 2016 U.S. presidential election is going to be overturned due to election fraud.

10. Cults are not financially transparent/accountable. Governments are ignoring/resisting Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. Governments do not have zero based budgets and it is common for governments to run deficits. Both Republicans/Democrats overspend, but on different priorities. Ireo (talk) 16:09, 2 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Bullshit. The totes not transparently burner accounts of a banned user is stretching the definition of "cult" well beyond its breaking point. 16:26, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, our national deficit is fine. Our national debt is a bit bloated due to unsound fiscal policies (Bush jr, Trump, Reagan), but that's mostly been balanced out (Bush sr, Clinton, Obama, Biden). Ok? Ok. And people wonder why I don't want to listen to Ken... 16:43, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This is all so extremely exaggerated. All ideological organisations can share a small degree of some qualities of a cult. That doesn't make them cults. Cult leaders are rarely disposable while in Western politics they have a very fast turnover. The average democrat doesn't pledge their life long endless loyalty to the democrat leader or their cause nor a substantial amount of their personal resources. They don't wall themselves off in gated communities and dedicate most of their time and resources to the furthering of the narrow interests of the organisation's leaders. The party isn't a monolith group that will try to destroy a party member who leaves the organisation. Some zealots may take that personally but you can find that in any group. I mean people on a bowling team can take a member leaving them so personally they won't talk to them for a while. That doesn't make them a cult. Senators and Representatives frequently vote against their party's line in congress and don't get expelled from the party (which they might do in countries with a parliamentary system like Canada). I wouldn't even call Spain's Vox party or Belgium's communist party a cult. There can be a small number of extremists who act like that but you can easily be a member of that party while having most of your friends and family members disagree with you, you don't pledge your life to the organisation and you can easily leave without losing that much. Elected Vox members are married to or have children who support other parties. Your typical contribution to be a member is €10. You can go to functions and parties without even being a member (just a friend of someone). You can openly disagree with the party policies at meetings and congresses. Rose is extremely hyper-mega-exaggerating. Neither the democrats or republicans are remotely a cult.  Shabi  DOO  18:00, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The party isn't in a cult, but some of the members are. Some of them are even worse than the European football hooligans.  19:30, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Meh. My guess is that the largest political cult in the United States is probably QAnon. Even in this case we're only talking about a small percentage of Republican voters, and even then QAnon does not have some of the most dangerous characteristics of some of the worst cults. I actually cannot think of any US liberal political cult equivalents. I certainly can think of cults popular with some Hollywood star types (from Scientology to NXIVM) but none of those are political. There is no need to really respond further as the OP was most likely a well known, sock-banned-many-times shit stirring troll. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 20:13, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I like how conservatives claim to hate Hollywood and the media, yet they elected a reality TV star as president and are now apparently trumpeting the opinion of some has-been actress. 20:17, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say that Dems are necessarily in a cult, the problem is that the Left is being shifted toward radicalism. 15:50, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This is stupid click-bait bullshit by someone who doesn't understand what cults are. Also considering one political party is convinced the other stole an election and is running a global cannibalistic pedophilia ring, in addition to attacking the seat of government, maybe chill with the cult comparisons.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 16:24, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Progressive politics are so not shifting towards radicalism in the United States. Proposals that are labelled "radical" in the US by reactionaries...are absolute uncontroversial status quo for both progressives and conservatives in almost every other developed democracy. You're letting conservative reactionaries dictate the narrative and labels of things by making what should be entirely reasonable, economically efficient, crime reducing, misery reducing, equality facilitating, prosperity and happiness inducing policies...seem like radical machinations of evil. Stop letting this happen and stop playing their game. Shabi  DOO  17:53, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comments like that amuse me to no end. "Yeah sure the right is literally preventing so called undesirables from voting in states where they have control but the left wants universal healthcare. Two sides of the same coin, really."-Flandres (talk) 18:48, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Why do people concern themselves over the pronouncements of people so eminently unqualified to have their opinions amplified by the media? Going to her wiki page it seems she emancipated herself at the age of 15, and is ostensibly a high-school dropout. She considers herself an expert on cults because she used to be a member of one. At a time when the G.O.P. seems more like a cult than anything since Juan Peron's Justicialist Party, she says that? Oy gevalt! Ariel31459 (talk) 19:34, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

"Modern Diseases" or "Diseases of Civilization" narratives
I've been trying to do some skeptical analysis on a recent trend of quacks (video I've been dissecting is by eye doctor Chris Knobbe) making out non-animal fats to be the cause of all our problems, centering around polyunsaturated fats, particularly the factoid that they are more vulnerable to the free radical process. As far as I can tell, this is true in the absence of vitamins and fiber, but only in that absence. The effects of eating potato chips and french fries are thus blamed on stir-fried vegetables via equivocation.

Anyway, the lecture uses a narrative that I suspect shows up in a lot of other cure-all: heart disease literally didn't exist until 1912, and it grew exponentially since then. I immediately recognized it as another form of the vaccine/autism fallacy--take any diagnosis that wasn't well understood until a certain time, and associate the rise in recorded cases with the rise in something else (vaccines, canned food, immigration, etc). He does the same thing for type 2 diabetes and macular degeneration.

It turns out that some other things that increased over the years are sedentary lifestyles, CT scans, and efficiency of academic publishing.

I want to write an article covering so-called "Diseases of Civilization," explaining for each one the advances that allowed society to understand and diagnose various conditions. Heart catheterization for heart disease, blood tests for diabetes, etc. I would like to know if there's prior art on the wiki that I can build on, a category it should go into, etc.

I'm also trying to find anything I can that shows dairy industry ties to the polyunsaturated fat scaremongering, as the people involved seem to converge on recommending milk and butter as staples. Only Elmer McCollum, whom Knobbe cites in his talk, has a glaringly obvious connection. Knobbe was also an associate professor at UT Dallas for a while, which may have had a lot of cattle industry people around, but I haven't found anything definitive of late. Just remembered Newsweek or Time magazine had a cover story hawking butter, I'll have to find it and look through the names there. Stinkypete (talk) 19:25, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * So while we now can look at, say, an Egyptian mummy and discover evidence of atherosclerosis, or the research around angina in the 19th century, knowing that fact at the time in the past was difficult. At bottom, you need to have a society-wide view that going into bodies after they're dead is neither taboo nor perverse nor evil. On top of that you need to be able to actually physically analyze the corpse, which means you need an organized system for transport and storage; if you don't have reliable refrigeration as well, you need an incredibly fast response time to get what you need prior to the onset of sufficient decay. The fact that we have the ability to detect signs of circulatory disease does not mean that it did not exist prior to our ability to log, track and quantify it. You are not crazy, the lecture is fallacious. Semipenultimate (talk) 21:01, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you might best be served by splitting into two articles: one on the technical approaches or historical efforts to identify what the ever-loving-fuck was happening when people just clutched their chests and fell over dead, and one on spin by people with something to sell (Maybe enhance the Food Woo article?). Good luck! Semipenultimate (talk) 21:01, 5 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm more familiar with a variation on a broader theme than the specific version you've looked at, Stinkypete. Proponents of paleo, LCHF, ketogenic, and carnivore diets, in part make claims like those you mention. (Of relevance may be the pages Weston Price and Weston A. Price Foundation, given popularity with such authors.) Modern food is usually said to be worse than all before it. However, ancient Egypt is sometimes used as an example of historical civilizations that also did it wrong. In such narratives, the pre-agricultural hunter-gatherers were the best. To summarize from memory, because the Egyptians so strongly went away from the low-carb high-fat approach and basically did what modern civilization does (eating lots of carbs, grain, etc.), that's why they also had some of the diseases and problems we do. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 14:53, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

is anyone else LITERALLY SHAKING
When you think about how 75 million people voted for ORANGE HITLER in 2020? I can barely sleep at night and have regular nightmares about 75 million LITERAL FASCISTS, all of whom are of course also cops, landlords and business owners. While the 81 million Biden voters are mostly unhoused trans womxn of color. How can I not be SHAKING when there is also the climate crisis which is the worst thing EVER, the deadliest pandemic in human history (wear a FUCKING mask, Karen!) and the even deadlier pandemic of Trumpism-racism-fascism that murders millions of indigenous nonbinary wxmxn of cxlxr every year? TERFs are WHITE SUPREMACY (talk) 23:38, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Can we ban this account for being Mike or Ken? GeeJayK (talk) 23:40, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Ban them for being a shit quality troll. Gods I miss EVE. I miss EVE trolls. At least they were funny most of the time... 23:43, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Already done. EVE trolls had class. We need more trolls with class. 23:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * When you think about how 81 million people voted for THE COMMIE ZOMBIE in 2020? I can barely sleep at night and have regular nightmares about 81 million LITERAL SJWS, all of whom are of course also college students, car salesmen and gay. While the 75 million Trump voters are mostly unhoused white men (actually oppressed). How can I not be SHAKING when there is also pride parades which is the worst thing EVER, the deadliest plandemic in human history (stop wearing a FUCKING mask, Richard!) and the even deadlier pandemic of Liberalism-socialism-communism that murders quintillions of real christians every year? 05:01, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, this isn't always a parody. There are people who literally believe this. — Jeh2ow Damn son!  14:13, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Unfunny. As true as it may be lot of the time with progressivism, the only laughs the parody elicited were of the sheer fail of it. 12:40, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

What are "EVE trolls"? Kevs  Ping!  05:46, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming that this refers to, a space based MMORPG. I had no idea they were a notable troll community either. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 12:13, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I mean, the trolls in that game were multi-year long con games that'd end with someone getting to the spot where they can arbitrarily disband the biggest player faction in the game. Revolverman (talk) 12:22, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Exactly. They usually put the effort in. EVE has ruined me for most forms of online trolling. 16:50, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Goomba revolution theory
Have any of you seen this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0bFjlPgukE

If you pay attention, you'll see a Dry Bone at several parts in the video. He's probably spying on behalf of Bowser???? LEVEL UP needs to upload Episode 2 soon!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Unclescrooge (talk) 03:58, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I know you're trying really hard to have fun and get my attention but you're still not endearing. 04:17, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The revolution could've been thwarted if Bowser only used the Shell Spin move from SSB4. Also, I appreciate you integrating into the community, and I understand your frustration at the state of RW, but in the future, please don't try to troll to prove your point. But good post though! 12:17, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * What is the "state of RW"?


 * What needs to be fixed or improved? AndreS (talk) 14:17, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I have a mild case of Covid-19 vaccine hesitancy
I have a mild case of Covid-19 hesitancy. I am scheduled for the second dose of the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine.

There is an organization called Doctors For Covid Ethics, which has around 100 members including professors of immunology and microbiology. The organization is a Covid-19 vaccine skeptic group. The organization seems well-intentioned and made up of non-quacks.

I may have partially debunked one of the main complaints about the Pfizer/Moderna mRNA vaccine, but not to my complete satisfaction.

I am not a reader of this particular website and I found this article via a link on another website: New Report Sheds Light on Vaccine Doomsday Cult.

My partial debunking of the article may come from this excerpt from the Salk Institute for Biological Studies website: "Scientists have known for a while that SARS-CoV-2’s distinctive "spike" proteins help the virus infect its host by latching on to healthy cells. Now, a major new study shows that the virus spike proteins (which behave very differently than those safely encoded by vaccines) also play a key role in the disease itself." The key portion of this excerpt is "which behave very differently than those safely encoded by vaccines".

The organization Doctors For Covid Ethics published:


 * COVID Vaccines: Necessity, Efficacy and Safety


 * Rebuttal letter to European Medicines Agency from Doctors for Covid Ethics, April 1, 2021

The excerpt of the first Doctors For Covid Ethics article that I am investigating is:

"Just as smoking could be and was predicted to cause lung cancer based on first principles, all gene-based vaccines can be expected to cause blood clotting and bleeding disorders [33], based on their molecular mechanisms of action. Consistent with this, diseases of this kind have been observed across age groups, leading to temporary vaccine suspensions around the world: The vaccines are not safe... Due to immunological priming, risks of clotting, bleeding and other adverse events can be expected to increase with each re-vaccination and each intervening coronavirus exposure. Over time, whether months or years [35], this renders both vaccination and coronaviruses dangerous to young and healthy age groups, for whom without vaccination COVID-19 poses no substantive risk. Since vaccine roll-out, COVID-19 incidence has risen in numerous areas with high vaccination rates [36–38]. Furthermore, multiple series of COVID-19 fatalities have occurred shortly after the onset vaccinations in senior homes [39,40]. These cases may have been due not only to antibody-dependent enhancement but also to a general immunosuppressive effect of the vaccines, which is suggested by the increased occurrence of Herpes zoster in certain patients [41]. Immunosuppression may have caused a previously asymptomatic infection to become clinically manifest. Regardless of the exact mechanism responsible for these reported deaths, we must expect that the vaccines will increase rather than decrease lethality of COVID-19 — the vaccines are not safe."

Root concern causing mild Covid-19 vaccine hesitancy: The root concern I have is that the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine may create "spikes" which damage a person's blood vessels. My hesitancy in using any product comes from my ignorance of the product. After I take the time to do due diligence, I either move forward or I remain skeptical until I discover new evidence which changes my mind.

New research suggests that the first dose of the Pfizer vaccine is better protection than initially thought: Pfizer coronavirus vaccine provides significant immunity after one dose, doesn’t need ultracold temperatures, new research finds

So I am weighing the pros/cons of getting the second dose of the Pfizer vaccine. I am leaning in favor of getting the second dose.

In a perfect world, I would take a Covid-19 vaccine after it went through many months/years of Phase IV vaccine clinical research, but we don't live in a perfect world. So I have to weigh the pros/cons and do some due diligence.

Any input from RationalWiki editors would be appreciated. AndreS (talk) 16:25, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Had both Pfizer labs Jan and March. No effect noticed at all. Not even from the needle. Get it done! Scream!! (talk) 16:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your encouragement, but one person's experience doesn't tip the balance much.


 * My family is very pro-vaccine. And I am an honest person who will not lie about getting the second dose. If I don't get the vaccine, my family is not going to disown me, but some elderly members of my family might not like it if I don't get the second dose of the Pfizer vaccine. And I don't want to create any unnecessary family friction.  I also want to do some international travel this year or early next year. And it may be easier to travel internationally if you have some proof of vaccination. AndreS (talk) 17:00, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I had a quick look at Doctors for Covid Ethics and I'm not very impressed. I had a look at just two of the doctors listed. The first is this chap who seems to be in charge and who WP seems to have a somewhat dim view of.  The second was this guy who is clearly a conspiracy theorist. At first glance I think that the whole organisation probably needs a RW article as purveyors of vaccine misinformation.  But that was a really quick validity check on them and others may have different opinions.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:33, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * In retrospect, my main concern was sparked by this article: New Report Sheds Light on Vaccine Doomsday Cult.


 * The root concern I have is that the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine may create "spikes" which damage a person's blood vessels.


 * I am not concerned with any of the purveyors of information. Because a bad website/organization can still make valid claims. I try to get information from the best sources though as that saves time and helps with reliability. Because my appointment to get the second Pfizer shot is within days, I was hoping to get my concern addressed.


 * I have a brand new general practitioner doctor, but I don't want to be a high-maintenance patient from the beginning part of the patient/doctor relationship. AndreS (talk) 18:01, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Not sure if srs, as it's interesting that you had to use the archive.org version for two of their articles because that post was removed from Medium for violating their TOS. But if not, that should tell you what you need to know. The other links should also tell you a lot as well too. We have articles on a few of the quacks "Doctors For Covid Ethics" links to (Association of American Physicians and Surgeons and Globalresearch) and it would be nice to have articles on a couple of the others like . It's a quack site. Anything this site says about the COVID vaccine can be safely ignored. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 18:15, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I had both doses (of the Moderna vaccine) and noticed no effects from it whatsoever, except for the second, evil head who's full of great ideas, so I'm keeping him. In all seriousness, to compare apples and oranges you have to compare any risk from the vaccine from the risk of contracting COVID. Since the latter risk is surely greater, I'd go ahead and get all the recommended doses.  Take comfort in the fact that if you've had one shot, any harm's already been done. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 18:21, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I took a Logic 101 course at a college. I know you cannot logically dismiss a claim purely due to its source.


 * So I come back to the issue of whether or not the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine may create "spikes" which damage a person's blood vessels.


 * I wish the governments of the world did a better job in reducing vaccine hesitancy through providing more comprehensive information. People have less trust in societal institutions so governments cannot rely on people trusting the experts. Lack of trust in experts/governments, vaccine hesitancy, people's laziness, and the politicization of the pandemic, could drag this pandemic out way further out than it needs to be. AndreS (talk) 18:50, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the sources and authorities you use are dubious. Nobody here (that I am aware of) is a doctor. So it is naturall to fall back on the credibility of the source when evaluating the claim. For example here is an article on Michael Yeadon who seems to be one of the prime movers of the site you originally quoted.  You said of this organisation " The organization seems well-intentioned and made up of non-quacks." - but this guy is now as quack as they come. Is it really necessary to go through outlandish claims one after another once the scource has already been thoroughly discredited? Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 19:37, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * (EC)Well, the CDC tries.
 * For technical information, it is well known that even the "reliable" sources will simplify things. The story of the COVID-19 spike protein damaging blood vessels appeared in this Reuters article, for instance. However, fortunately, they link to the technical paper, which goes in more detail: "SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein Impairs Endothelial Function via Downregulation of ACE 2" By ACE2, they are meaning the, which is the entry point on how the COVID virus does its damage: it binds to this enzyme, the cell absorbs the viral code, and boom, you have a viral cell that can go forth and replicate viral code. If this protein also "downregulates" (lowers activity) of the "endothelial function" (read: circulation system) when attacking ACE2 (reasonable given ACE2's role in circulation), it is reasonable to surmise that this is where Reuters came up with the term "blood vessel damage".
 * I would say that you don't have much to worry about, in other words, because a "vaccine" that downregulates ACE2 and acts just like the virus wouldn't be a good vaccine. The goal would be to create a version of the protein that does not attach to ACE2. Some technical details are here and here, but essentially, in the mRNA vaccines, the "spike" protein (one of many) has been "tweaked" so that it no longer can attach itself to the enzymes COVID attaches to (but is still close enough to generate a good antibody). So, in theory, there should be no reason to worry about cell damage. There's always the unknown, granted, because the body is complex. But a lot of the unknowns should be worked out due to the rigorous clinical trials. Between COVID-19's not insignificant mortality rate and the "long COVID" symptoms we are seeing, I think the vaccine is a rout with way much less risk, frankly. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 19:38, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The vaccine which has got bad press in Europe for causing rare blood-related issues is the non-mRNA AstraZeneca vaccine (it could be very rare allergic reactions or something behaving similarly), while the mRNA vaccines like the Pfizer one seem without such problems, and also cause milder reactions in general. As for blood vessels and the virus, damage seems to be from dysfunctional immune system reactions, not from the virus itself, which makes the idea that the vaccine's imitation of viral particles would cause such damage seem strange, unless it also caused the immune system to go into overdrive. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 19:12, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, many people are sceptical when it comes to mRNA vaccines, because it‘s new. Kevs  Ping!  19:18, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You cite 2 sources The Unz Review, and doctors4covidethics via Medium that are dubious. The Unz Review is part of the alt-right, and frequently has antisemitic conspiracy theorists. Medium has a low bar for publication, including actual quality journalism, bloggers, and opinion pieces. Sucharit Bhakdi seems to be the main (or only?) figure behind doctors4covidethics. He has been fact checked and it was found that "Bhakdi's claims, in particular in his YouTube videos and in the book Corona Fehlalarm?, have been extensively fact-checked and found to be variously unsubstantiated, misleading, or false.".
 * I just got my second dose of the Pfizer vaccine, and experienced no side-effects other that short-term localized soreness. Bongolian (talk) 20:34, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * When using a new type of medicine, it helps to understand how the medicine works.


 * Dr. Mobeen Syad explains a key issue about mRNA Covid-19 vaccines: Will the vaccine continue to make spike proteins?.


 * Dr. Sayad says the amount of spiked proteins produced by the Pfizer vaccine will be a small fraction of what an actual coronavirus infection will cause. That is reassuring to hear.


 * The sources that PanGalacticGargleBlaster provided seem like they will be useful too and I am reading them now.


 * I have a questioning nature that sometimes causes me to dig and dig until I better understand things. In life, when you hit foundation bedrock, often it is better to stop digging and build your house on the bedrock.


 * Also, I like to strive for excellence and not be satisfied with very suboptimal solutions.


 * Realistically, the potential risk associated with the Pfizer vaccine second dose seems to be lower than the risk of me getting infected and being hurt by Covid-19.


 * I do have one last question. What happens to the much smaller amount of spiked proteins that the vaccine produces? How long do they last in a person's system? And are they replicated/replaced by the body? I know cells are replaced in the body 7 to 10 years, but some cells last far longer than others. Based on Dr. Syad's video, I would strongly venture to guess that once the mRNA is destroyed in the first 2 days of getting the vaccine, more spiked proteins are not created due to the vaccine. AndreS (talk) 20:42, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I had a hunch that staying hydrated before/after the second dose of the Pfizer vaccine and engaging in non-strenuous exercise like walking will reduce the odds of side effects. According to medical experts/experiments, my intuition was correct.  Water and increasing your circulation helps lower the intensity/duration of second dose Covid-19 vaccinations. AndreS (talk) 21:15, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I looked at the Unz Review article comments. There are a lot of people who are way out on the deep end of public discourse when it comes to the coronavirus pandemic and its vaccines. We're talking about a Bizzaro comic strip level of surrealness. AndreS (talk) 22:12, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The spike proteins are not persistent. Spike protein production stops quickly; it cannot continue after the degradation of the vaccine mRNA, and the entire point of the vaccine is to trigger the immune system to develop antigens against the spike proteins in the first place. The conclusions in the medium article you linked to are absurd. The mRNA injected, and the spike proteins produced, are present in the virus. For the claim that people with healthy immune systems are already protected, they link to studies finding that prior infection with other coronaviruses can provide some protection in the form of immune cells sensitive to proteins similar to those presented in COVID-19. The idea that this prevents infection is absurd, as is the notion that we're better off just providing medication to vulnerable people after they're infected: if that were true, then there wouldn't already be so many deaths. The claim that vaccination cannot protect against viruses invading via the respiratory tract is false; this is what the flu vaccine does, too.  Vaccination can't protect against virus reaching the lungs, but neither can anything else.  The point of vaccination is that if virus does make it into the body, the immune system is already primed to deal with it quickly, and lung tissue is not insulated from the immune system. It is true that the vaccine presents risks, but these risks are incredibly small, and treating them as comparable to the risk of infection is incompetent at best, dishonest at worst. The J&J vaccine program was halted in the US briefly when blood clots presented as a rare side effect (roughly a 1 in a million risk).  There is, therefore, a risk of blood clots, but the risk of clots from the J&J vaccine is far smaller than the risk of death from COVID-19 infection. Also, not that the J&J and AstraZeneca vaccines, which have been linked (again, in rare cases) to blood clots, use the traditional method of vaccination; they do not use mRNA like Pfizer and Moderna, which have not been associated with clotting.
 * To address your concern about "spikes which damage a person's blood vessels". In the context of the vaccine, spike refers to spike proteins, which are the proteins on the surface of the virus.  These proteins cannot directly damage tissue; "spike" refers to their shape. What they can do is interact with receptors on the surface membranes of cells, causing the cells to take up the virus.  The mRNA vaccines contain mRNA which codes for the viral spike proteins. When body cells take up the vaccine mRNA, they begin to produce these spike proteins, which can then be recognized by the immune system, which begins producing antigens. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒   talk  23:51, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

As far as the spike proteins that are produced, how long do those spiked proteins last in a person's body typically? AndreS (talk) 23:59, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I found another video by Dr. Sobeen Syad: Will Vaccine Generated Spike Proteins Bind To Our Cells?. I believe this will mop up my remaining questions about the Pfizer Covid vaccine. If it doesn't, he created the video Pfizer Vaccine Associated Adverse Effects From Israel which should address any lingering questions. AndreS (talk) 00:12, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Had both Pfizer. First one had some mild fatigue and soreness. Second one I have more fatigue and more soreness. But it's better than Covid.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 21:55, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * A former doctor of mine said to not trust the medical literature in terms of a few studies due to sloppy work and fraud being commonplace. He was right, of course.


 * A lot of it comes down to trust. The odds that American medical scientists would be intentionally sloppy and come out with a dangerous vaccine that would harm 100,000+ fellow Americans plus many people around the world seems remote.


 * And to anthropomorphize, I would rather rely on the kindness and good intentions of medical scientists than the kindness of a deadly disease that messes up many people even if it doesn't kill them.


 * I am definitely getting my second dose of the Pfizer vaccine. I pretty much knew it was going to be the path I would decide on. It comes down to the cost/benefit ratio and having a sense of urgency to make the right decision. AndreS (talk) 01:34, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Fun fact: Thwomps don't like profanity
LOL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Gdlcq4DcGM&t=100s Unclescrooge (talk) 22:54, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Never have I felt more tempted to use the collapse template-Hastur! (talk) 23:02, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Why?????? Unclescrooge (talk) 23:25, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Knowing Mars will likely be colonized in the future I thought of this
Walmart should build a branch on Mars. How do we not know if a colonist wouldn't want a pack of smokes or a snack cake. They should get in on the ground floor.

My brother suggested (as a joke) to start a conspiracy theory in which Walmart really owns SpaceX in order to build a Walmart on Mars. --Agimi i Apokalipsit (talk) 01:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Mars will not likely be colonized.


 * Ocean exploration has a much better return on investment (ROI) than Mars colonization. AndreS (talk) 03:33, 7 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I think that life on Mars would be more of a possibility than life spent under thousands of pounds of cold, crushing water. And anyway, the idea, like nuking hurricanes, just sounds awesome. 12:19, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Just because you explore the ocean or harness it in different ways, doesn't mean you have to live beneath the ocean waves.


 * How many people can the world support?


 * "Debate about the actual human carrying capacity of Earth dates back hundreds of years. The range of estimates is enormous, fluctuating from 500 million people to more than one trillion. Scientists disagree not only on the final number, but more importantly about the best and most accurate way of determining that number—hence the huge variability." - science.org.au AndreS (talk) 13:15, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I also like the idea of exporting the shittiest things about Earth to other planets as well. Also, a pack of smokes? If you smoke in a Mars bio dome, I will airlock your dumb ass myself. 00:21, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If you go outside to smoke on Mars, will your cig go out in the martian atmosphere, or will the lack of oxygen give you an extra buzz? I fear science fiction has lied to us about Mars's atmosphere. --Annanoon (talk) 09:36, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I killed a turtle by accident
I ran it over on the highway when I wasn’t paying attention. I went the long way around to check on it and the sight was more than I could take. I don’t know what to do or how to feel. I feel so torn that I ran over one of my favorite animals because I was looking at my phone. My head hurts now and I’m not sure if I should move on or if that’s making light of what I did. I feel awful. I always said I make efforts to help animals on the road and here I am feeling like a hypocrite. What do I do?Machina (talk) 15:02, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It was not intentional. It was an accident. Learn to pay more attention and feel no guilt.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:06, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * First, the grim imperative for driving is actually to run it over if other choices are too dangerous (such as swerving or braking suddenly) unless it's a human. Guilt is inevitable so learn how to cope with it. However please don't look at your phone while driving unless it's the gps. I don't think you're a hypocrite but I figure tyhat experience will stay on your head and I hope you'll learn to not use your phone because of this. 15:07, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Always remember: see the dog, hit the dog. Swerve to miss the dog, hit the semi in the other lane. Comrade General Pootis (talk) 19:14, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Or veer into the ditch, which is also possible death. 00:16, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I can still see it flying in the rear view mirror though when I close my eyes. I feel like such a monster. I know I have to move on, that carrying this won’t bring it back or undo it. But I...feel like that’s letting me off easy. I feel guilty that I don’t feel worse, that I’m not breaking down or crying for what I did.Machina (talk) 15:14, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * What do you want RW to do, put you in prison for turtle murder? Remorse doesn't have much of a use in of itself, but remorse can guide us to change our behaviors. The whole "letting myself off easy" spheel seems a little performative; if you want to show contrition for what you've done, simply make a commitment to not look at your phone while driving. It will do a lot more good than trying to convince people to shame you for an accident. 69.60.33.176 (talk) 17:35, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I accidentally ran over a turtle on my honeymoon. The guilt was pretty bad.  Maybe we can go to the gallows together for our shared crime. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 23:06, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Just remember there wasn’t anything you could have done differently. Like mentioned above, swerving to miss the animal could put you in danger, which is unacceptable. And at least you didn’t hit something that would have fucked up your car, like a deer. 00:19, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know if this'll help or hurt, but years ago a friend of mine found a roadkill turtle (she didn't run it over herself) and scavenged parts of the shell. She wrapped one of the fragments in copper wire and made it into a pendant for me, which I now wear on a necklace; people frequently comment on it because the side I have facing out (which would've been inside-facing on the turtle) is a very nice dark green and yellow. Sometimes even a little bit of good can come out of an otherwise grim situation. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい ) 01:50, 8 May 2021 (UTC)


 * All good advice. I have been involved in the termination of a few small animals in the last twenty years. I have never forgotten. People tell you to forget about it, but they don't mean completely forget what happened. A normal human will remember. It's good to remember. Maybe it hurts. So, now you know you are alive. Good luck.UncleKrampus (talk) 01:57, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Use the past to inform the future, what's done is done, and it can't be undone. You feel bad because you killed something that had no chance of fighting back or defending itself, and that's a perfectly natural reaction. But you can't hold onto that reaction forever, you have to let it help you improve as a person, to help you figure out what you could have done differently. 03:31, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I was driving back from Yosemite through Nevada. One of my buddies who was awake in the car said "Mars is bright on the horizon."  And it was and it was very cool, middle of the night, Mars bright and red.  And then I hit a jackrabbit patch.  Empty highway, rabbits everywhere.  The first one just looked at me and thwump thunk, oh shit, I just killed a rabbit.  I felt terrible.  Then as I'm driving along, feeling awful, I slow down when I see another rabbit sitting on the shoulder and kinda merge center, and it jumps in front of the car, thunk th thunk thwump.  And I'm talking to my navigator, I'm like "holy shit I just killed two rabbits" and he's like "It's ok, it's ok." and so I'm trying to deal with the fact that I hit a second rabbit, and a third rabbit starts racing up the shoulder and then dives in front of the car.  I must have looked terrible after that because hd said "Don't worry, look at all of them.  They'll make more."  We still joke about mars being red and the war of the jackrabbits.  Mostly because I won't let it go, it was a rough stretch of highway for me.  Same trip back, I ran over a cat on a 5 lane Colorado highway, because I couldn't confidently lane shift or brake with the traffic.  That's less comfortable to joke about.  Do your best, but you can't flip your car and you can't reason away animals that don't know how to stay out of the road.  I've seen the aftermath of a stray cat getting caught in a belt after a truck was started because the engine was warm the night before.  Few creatures in this world get a dignified end.


 * That isn't to justify cruelty, it's to remember we do human things. We don't have to weigh it against all of existence.  It's very human that you would feel terrible for taking a life, and I commend you for feeling that way.  You killed that turtle.  And somehow you have harmed yourself by killing that turtle, I've felt it.  You can't make it up to that turtle, not in any way that turtle would meaningfully understand.  I'm a big believer in animal rights, in animals having their own experiences, so I'm not asking you to speak for the turtle, and ultimately I don't have an answer here.  I can't speak for the turtle either.  But what you've done occurs every day.  How you can make it up to that turtle in a way that YOU can meaningfully understand?  Maybe that's a terribly human problem.  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:39, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

sounds like the roads in the us are slick with guts of all the animals mown down. you all have killed more turtles than i have ever seen in the wild. bet there is alot more variety in the animals you've all flattened and all. a veritable road kill safari. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:57, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There are turtles in the rivers where I live but I've never seen one crossing the road. I've seen wild boar a few times though. Sometimes they get hit by cars - it's usually fatal for the boar, but the car will be spending some time being fixed.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:31, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I've had the thrill of seeing turtles at some ponds as ornaments. I had one right outside the apartment. Needed binoculars to verify it's a turtle, but that made my day regardless. 19:19, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I live in the Midwest, so on highways, I frequently see dead deer, racoons, and other small mammals. Deer kills can be distressingly gory, sometimes with viscera and blood spread a good ways up the road. 23:33, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm new here, and this is my first "contribution". I've been reading RW for a bit over a year & signed up just now.
 * I'd like to point out that, while hitting and killing an animal is unpleasant, looking at one's phone while driving is criminal negligence, not an accident.
 * Don't be so sentimental about it. Turtles are killed every day. Rugbyfan (talk) 03:07, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

IMPORTANT QUESTION!!!!!!
Who's this "Oliver D. Smith"??? How's that an "inappropriate username"????????? Unclescrooge (talk) 20:43, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Impersonations are a no-no. 20:44, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * [EC]This sort of drama isn’t really appropriate for the saloon. He’s a user who was banned from the site a while ago for a variety of reasons, there isn’t an easy one paragraph summary. Accounts with his name are often actually mikemikev, another banned user he has a feud with. Christopher (talk) 20:47, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from adding ten question marks at the end of your queries. Eight is fine, hell, even nine is given a blind eye by the mods, but seriously, one is all you need. 16:46, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Scottish separatists won the majority of seats
! Kevs  Ping!  14:56, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That’s been the case for several years now. The vote share & number of seats for the SNP, Conservatives and Labour is almost identical to the last Scottish election. —RWRW (talk) 16:24, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * They were one seat short of a majority. However their previous partners won enough to give them a comfortable working relationship for most things. A lack of a full majority will make getting Johnson to agree to a second referendum difficult. He literally said "now is not the time to tear apart the union" after he was one of the major players in ripping the UK out of the extremely beneficial and far less integrated European Union. In any case the SNP will likely go to the high court to see if Scotland are able to call their own referendum without Westminster's support. Scotland has far more in common with Western European and Scandanavian countries than England does at the moment when it comes to social spending and support for more generous social programs. Considering how well a comparative country (Ireland) is doing without the UK and being in the EU and Scotland's abundance of newly developed resources and the shit-show that is Brexit they would be very wise to seriously consider separating. Shabi  DOO  22:53, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, I know practically nothing about the split, but I'm on the side of the separatists. I think that they should have the freedom to break off from the UK. 16:43, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If this happens, surely other separatists movement will rise as well(e.g. Catalonia, Flanders/Rattachism, Irish reunification). Kevs  Ping!  17:41, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * But maybe that's a good thing. If they want to be free of rule under another, I don't see why they shouldn't have it. 17:53, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Scotland is free to leave the UK. They voted on it a few years back and decided to stay. Christopher (talk) 17:55, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * A lot has changed in those last few years. Maybe some voters have changed their minds?-Flandres (talk) 18:29, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Brexit changes everything. Shabi  DOO  18:39, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Is this meme real or did I have some kind of hallucination
Okay, so, I was watching a StrangeAeons video the other day (the one she did about Tramp Stamps), and she kept mentioning this tumblr meme called "bug ass", which is a picture of a type of ant with a stupidly big abdomen. Anyway, I've been trying to find pictures of it but Google gives me no results. I'm just wondering if this meme is real or not. TheJakeHolmesVersion (talk) 14:11, 10 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I believe this |this is the man you're looking for. Is it a meme or not, I dunno. But that ant looks engorged. 17:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Overeating as a form of suicide (bit of my mental illness)
Battling that has been so much fun. Ended up gaining 20 pounds. I also kept hiding it from family due to extreme humiliation and the voice telling me to do so backing me into a corner. --Agimi i Apokalipsit (talk) 23:50, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Ethical issues about suicide aside, overeating is a really bad way to commit suicide. There was an article in many years ago about a man who attempted suicide by overeating. He wound up being morbidly obese, quite alive, and immobilized to his bed from obesity. Bongolian (talk) 03:51, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There's an Italin movie called La Grande Bouffe (Blow-Out) that tells the story of four friends that gather in a villa with the purpose of eating themselves to death. The result ain't pretty if you wanna know. GeeJayK (talk) 04:05, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I would imagine overeating yourself to the point of death would take quite the time, though I’m sure it would be worth the weight. Moria  (talk)  14:04, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Damn, that sounds like an awful way to die. 20:33, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I may have lost a battle but I didn't lose the war. --Agimi i Apokalipsit (talk) 22:09, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Right on. Even if you fall, what really matters is that you've got the strength to get back up and keep going. 16:44, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Starting next month I will be cutting out all breads and pastas from my diet. Won't be easy but if it helps me lose weight then I will do it. Now battling the suicidal voice is a whole other ballpark. --Agimi i Apokalipsit (talk) 23:58, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Calorie balance is what matters for weight change, not what you eat. What you eat is important for other aspects of health, and different foods produce different satiation per calorie, which can affect how easy it is to manage calorie balance. If you drink sugary or alcoholic beverages often, that's probably the place to start. Bread and pasta are easy calories, but there aren't calorie-free direct substitutions like water for soda. Dropping them (if they're a major part of your diet now) would represent a significant disruption in your routine that you could easily revert to by habit. And exercise helps too. It even helps with suicidal voices. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 11:37, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Intermittant fasting
It might be useful to mention here the idea of intermittant fasting. One does not need to eat fewer calories to fast in this way. One needs to shorten the period during which one is willing to eat food in a 24 hour day. The reason I do it is because of mood swings I've experienced a few hours after eating a large meal. I would get cranky and feel tired, and sometimes depressed. There are various other things that could be done, like a low carb diet. But I think fasting has improved my sense of well being. I've lost 5 pounds as well, but I would do it anyway for my improvement in feeling well.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:35, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Idea for a fictional culture and ethnic group in a post-apocalyptic novel
Call it- Greconese or a hybrid between Greek and Taiwanese ethnicity/culture.

It would be in a world of zombies but there would still be civilization and government like the United States. --Agimi i Apokalipsit (talk) 23:03, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Zombie it is actually a good idea, but at some point you really ought to finish and polish something. Even if it is just a short story. Shabi  DOO  00:00, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Zombies kill all humans! And then form a republic... next up, zombie stock market and zombie yoga! All jokes aside, the concept sounds exciting and I'm sure there's a world of ideas you could include in it. Moria  (talk)  05:02, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * As someone who actually lives in Taiwan, I have to say that mainstream Taiwanese culture is just traditional Chinese culture. Yes, there's certainly been some impact from 50 years of Japanese colonial rule. And, of course, there's the influence of Western (especially American) pop culture and increasingly of South Korean pop culture too. But the aboriginal cultures of Taiwan really haven't had much impact on the lives of most ethnic Chinese people here. So really what I'm saying is why not just make it a Greek-Chinese culture that's dominant in China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Macau and Singapore? Spud (talk) 06:15, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Would the zombies have a religion? Maybe a deity/deities to pray to? I was envisioning in my head a temple to Ykatar, the Great and Terrible Lord of the Dead, He Who Divides The Earth, Master of All Who Scuttle Beneath His Gaze. His chattels and undead servants gather at his feet, yellow-eyed and ravening. They slide under us and over us and through us. Hail Ykatar. Hail those who would come forth in His name to crush the resistance. Hail to the new empire of the dead which has swept away humanity's rabble into the void where it belongs forevermore. Hail Ykatar. 13:58, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * For the people who would be the Greconese would need a Conlang and a religion. The zombies will be partially intelligent initially although they would gain intelligence. --Agimi i Apokalipsit (talk) 20:47, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * They'd speak a language based primarily on Mandarin and Greek. (And if you want to learn Mandarin just to add some background to your first novel as an unpublished writer, go ahead!)
 * In real world Taiwan, most people do actually follow some kind of syncretic religion anyway. The religious beliefs of most people are a hodgepodge pf Buddhism, Taoism and Chinese folk religion. Most people here imagine that the Queen Mother of the West, Buddha, Lao Tzu and Confucius are all living happily together in Heaven. And I'm sure that a lot of them nowadays think that Jesus, Mary and maybe even the God of Abraham are there too. A syncretic religion similar to the one that really exists but with more elements from Christianity and/or ancient Greek religion isn't hard to imagine. Spud (talk) 00:10, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * As for the religion, it will be based mostly on the Greek Orthodox Church mixed with old time Chinese folk religion. The language will be a hybrid between Koine Greek, Chinese, Japanese with the Cyrillic alphabet. --Agimi i Apokalipsit (talk) 16:47, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

My Birthday
It's today, I guess (It's the 10th already in UTC time but here in CDT it's still the 9th).Aaronmichael5 01:56, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I'll wish you a happy birthday if nobody else will. Maybe they're all just waiting until it's May 10 in their time zones. Spud (talk) 05:57, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Happy birthday! Christopher (talk) 06:40, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * As we say in these parts, "Hippo birdies to you…" Bongolian (talk) 07:02, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Happy birthday señorit@ Shabi  DOO  11:35, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Tolerable "Huh. I'm not dead yet.  I suppose that's mostly a good thing" Day.  (Yeah, I know, but I'm old...) Kencolt (talk) 11:48, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Here's a cake. Enjoy. — Jeh2ow Damn son!  12:44, 10 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Happy birthday! Ignore the feeling of death's icy grasp inching ever nearer! But seriously, happy birthday. 13:11, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Happy Birthday. --Agimi i Apokalipsit (talk) 16:12, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * 16:26, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * We meet again, Birthday Boy! How the sweet garish glow of the red spotlight shineth upon thine brow! 17:01, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I really love my funny tuxed eyeballs 17:16, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "Welcome to hell! You must have a drink, lad!" 17:30, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Also thanks for letting me steal your userpage format. 17:33, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Happy birthday. I feel kinda like a person on the street spotting a celebrity here, like, what do I say?  Thank you for your work, I mean, different worlds, but yeah, happy birthday.  Keep kickin ass, I can't do what you do.  I don't want to interrupt your day.  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 01:34, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Didn't expect this many responses. Thanks to all. For clarification my birthday is actually on the 9th. But it was so late at night when I posted that it said 10th by the time I put in the UTC time. Aaronmichael5 16:59 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Black Libertarians Matter................is a thing
https://www.practicallylibertarian.com/post/black-libertarians-matter?fbclid=IwAR0NEK1JF73wo7GXeUxLOhJXIjYulOEjqHQLEwyUDwr4zPoctP9_9jMpT-E

While this site is promoting Libertarianism, at least it recognizes the issues facing African Americans and other oppressed ethnic groups. --Agimi i Apokalipsit (talk) 00:45, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Mm. 01:30, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Seems like a load of shit but whatever, I can't hate too much on Black people pursuing the bag.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 15:30, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There's two points which undermine the linked blog post. Firstly is the fact that the Libertarian party is useless. They flat out don't have any power to wield, and people who want change will wish to court people with the power to make that change happen. Secondly, well... Libertarianism as a whole has a white supremacy problem. Libertarians don't like talking about it or acknowledging it, but it's there, and it's a problem. 15:46, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Democrats’ ambitions for health care are shrinking rapidly

 * Democrats’ ambitions for health care are shrinking rapidly

It took Obama and Nancy Pelosi almost 1 1/2 years to pass ObamaCare. If Joe Biden doesn't get traction on healthcare soon, he's not going to get much. The midterm elections are approaching and the party in power usually loses seats in Congress in midterm elections. Rugbyfan (talk) 02:05, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Dems weren’t gonna get healthcare in the first place with only a 50 seat majority in the Senate. 02:18, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That 50 seat majority is just tragic for them. Since the Dems are, yes, the "majority party" they will be blamed for whatever they did not deliver on. On the other hand they have to resort to tricks like reconciliation to do anything at all, which greatly limits their options.-Flandres (talk) 02:22, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Rugbyfan, new user that signed up to just post on Saloon Bar, sounds familiar to me, and the formatting is nearly the same as this previous thread. Huh; maybe it's just a hunch. The rest of you can carry on, though, but any wrong move from rugbyfan, just do the usual business. 02:28, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I find the topic interesting enough I am willing to humor it, even if it is started by Ken.-Flandres (talk) 02:43, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That's fair enough, yeah. It's just weird it's started by someone who only pretends to care about healthcare for people. 02:55, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll just leave this link here, though Ken probably won't read it or care. 04:03, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Ken, please stop. Just stop. Go over to my talkpage if you want to spam, but don't you have better things to do than this, like upholding the Constitution and refuting pro-choice arguments? The fact that a fifty-year-old man spends every ounce of his free time spamming the Bar is disconcerting. 13:19, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Vaporizing
I had my bank call me last week, my card had been charged 87 cents in georgia, so I called it off and got a new number. I changed all my passwords, but a very strange coincidence was that I used the same password for this account and my Hulu account (That I have only kept because my mom watches it, monsters) were the same password and some weird things happened with my card and some weirder things happened with my Hulu. I only found out I had the same password because I was able to do a "forgot my email" on Hulu, which is a weird feature, and my password hadn't been changed. But my Hulu email got changed to jjrnetzon+81308@gmail.com which doesn't even look real, my password stayed the same. I did a hard reset of this computer tonight and guessed at this password for this account in a cringey "I hope I didn't do that" kind of way. I was dumb or drunk and used a password here. I'll be seeing ya, but it won't be as Gol Sarnitt, which sucks, I really liked this username. Ah well. See y'all on the other side.


 * Ha, looks like I can't do it myself. I can't change my password either, so this is a mercy call to admin.  I'll be back, and I promise it will be clear it's me, but I gotta nuke a lot of shit right now, it's not fun for me either. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:10, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Please keep Gol Sarnitt as your handle when you return. 13:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If you created a new username (Gol Sarnitt 2 or something), a tech/mod could rename your old account to Gol Sarnitt old and rename your new account to Gol Sarnitt. Problem is there’s no way of verifying it’s you. Christopher (talk) 14:50, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's possible to replicate his writing style. Just ask him to tell you a story. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 15:59, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

An out of place vexillological rant about the pride flag(s)
(This is about the variants and designs of the LGBTQ pride flag, not the nature of what they represent or the politics surrounding them)

1. There ain't any reason for there to be separate flags for things already represented by the rainbow (like bi and trans); these are sexual and gender orientations, not US states (though they often share the state flags' lack of originality)

2. The inclusion of addition elements in order to expand the scope of groups represented by the pride flag is unnecessary and uncreative. Things like the black power movement are unrelated and attempting to combine them is just stupid. It's so often done in the most unimaginative way possible by just slapping on an ever increasing number of varying stripes going in different directions. Seriously, looks like the South African flag as designed by someone without a frontal cortex. Comrade General Pootis (talk) 19:08, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Interesting argument. It would be more convenient if everyone just stuck to the one rainbow flag. Of course, I don't believe in the whole thing, but whatever. 19:31, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Having just a rainbow flag seems better to me than trying to remember what everything means. Isn’t the movement supposed to be United?Machina (talk) 19:50, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Why would adding a black line to the flag be a problem? The more colours the better. Black lives in the LGBTQ+ community are frequently ignored and are even discriminated against within the LGTBQ+ community. They face even more discrimination in and difficulties in every day life than non-black LGBTQ+. People within marginalised groups also marginalise others within their own groups (it happens within communities of race, gender, sexuality, class, religious minorities, disabilities). If adding a black stripe to a bloody flag helps add a voice to the struggle of black LGTBQ+ people...I think it would be grotesque to object to it because "it ruins the colourful symmetry and aesthetic quality of the flag". WTF? Shabi  DOO  21:01, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The whole original point of the rainbow flag is that it's inclusive; it's supposed to represent everyone. The individual colors of the rainbow are supposed to be abstract, not represent specific people. Also, if we need to add on more elements to represent specifically blacks then what about all the other marginalized groups? Comrade General Pootis (talk) 01:52, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Shrug. Some article or some event or whatever using the trans flag colours quickly tells me it might to be relevant to me. I fail to see any problem with that. Dendlai (talk) 22:26, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Because trans people are already represented in the original flag - that's what the T in LGBT stands for; it's redundant and unnecessary. Comrade General Pootis (talk) 01:52, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * How is that helpful for an indication of something that's specifically trans related? Why is being more exact a problem? LGBT+ being a thing doesn't mean L, G, B, T et cetera don't have their own distinct identities. Inclusiveness does not also have to mean erasure of individueal groups. Dendlai (talk) 07:15, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

i thought the point of the standard rainbow flag was that it represented the diversity and inclusivity of lgbt identities. none of the colours represent any specific group because its meant to represent all of us, united, without any risk of leaving any one group unrepresented as there would be if the colours were meant to represent specific groups.

any additions to this flag that are meant to represent a specific group singles that group out from the rest. i can see merit in it for highlighting existing injustices and solidarity with marginalised group that needs our attention. i see new additions, be it a couple of brown/black stripes or that south african style triangle, as highlighting and bringing to the fore groups already included in the original (everythings included) flag becaus there are issues that need highlighting.

i dont think additions of this sort should be permanent additions to the flag meant represent us all. that would be more than highlighting or drawing attention to marginalised group for a particular cause for us to rally behind. it would instead be a permanent indication of division. right now nothing on the flag represents any one group so it can represent all lgbt. add an extra stripe like in the philidelphia flag to represent black lgbt, then its the only group that is specifically represented. it says black lgbt are seperate to rest of the lgbt world. its no longer a flag that unites all lgbt identities under it. it cannot unite all if any one group is specifically represented. and if black lgbt is respresented, why not indian/pakistani? why not chinese? it stops being inclusive when you can see who it does and who doesnt get a mention.

the way i see it, the rainbow should be for all lgbt any where in the world. marching under that you can have the specialised or localised flags that speak more to specific groups than to others. but they'd be united under the inclusiveness of a rainbow flag that by design has no one group represented by any one part of it. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:28, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not a surprise. Black people have, to some extent or another been excluded in many ways both out there in the general world with its racist undertones and in the LGTBQ+ world with its less pronounced racist undertones. Resistance to adding a black stripe (with all of the reasonable sounding and even possibly genuinely felt excuses) are hardly surprising. I mean the flag has been that way for some years now. Why would we not conserve these traditions and keep things the way they are? Ahem. Cough cough. Shabi  DOO  14:35, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There are excellent aesthetic reasons why a "rainbow" flag doesn't work unless it depicts something reasonably approximate to an actual fucking rainbow. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 21:07, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes and of course the exact colours on that rainbow flag perfectly represent a rainbow don't they? In the very shades and order they are on that fucking flag? One could never see a truer representation of a rainbow than the arbitrary colour choices, number of lines on that flag and missing shades of blue. How again exactly is it that the rainbow represents us again HBC again? You are one of us right so you should know. And how is it that without a black stripe will it stop representing LGTBQ+ness? I'd love to hear another brilliant excuse to exclude black people once again from everything. Shabi  DOO  22:04, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Which part of "reasonably approximate" are you failing to grasp, man? The original rainbow flag is a stone cold design classic that works on a whole bunch of different levels. I'm not opposed to random new Technicolor Dreamflags if that's what people want, but from a design perspective at least, they'd be much better served by leaving the rainbow the fuck alone, and starting again from scratch. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 22:19, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

[EC]Most of the opposition in this thread to the black stripe pride flags is purely aesthetic, no one wants to exclude black people from anything. This just looks terrible and this looks like a regular rainbow flag that’s been set on fire (the white triangle has already been burnt away, black/brown is burning). Christopher (talk) 22:22, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes...and as I clearly have very badly argued...aesthetic excuses are terrible excuses. Put the bloody black stripe in and help usher in at least the semblance of greater inclusion to an already marginalised people. I'm LGTBQ+ and I personally don't give a shit about the rainbow flag, it doesn't represent me in any way, I had no vote in it becoming an emblem for the community and I personally would prefer some other. If a black stripe could make even a small difference in one of the most excluded and marginalised people in the West (LGTBQ+ black people) then fucking hurah. Adding a little stripe to an already silly flag is something great. Just do it. Shabi  DOO  22:25, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It’s not an “excuse”, aesthetic isn’t some irrelevant detail for a flag. The pride flag is a rainbow, and rainbows don’t have black or brown in them. It looks wrong, awkwardly tacked on. Christopher (talk) 22:46, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I see. So adding the black colour to something that is supposed to represent the unity and diversity of the community would ... ahem ... "look wrong". Apart from a few people going "oh...that's not extra rainbow-like" ... please tell me...what other harm would come from that? Seriously...other than not having a perfect looking rainbow...what other disadvantages would there be to making that flag more inclusive? Shabi  DOO  22:56, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Welllll rainbows are just a way of white light being split up into a spectrum of color, and whatever we perceive colors is actually a combination of hue, tone, and saturation. What we see as brown is just a hue that's orange, red, or orange-reddish with lower tone and saturation values. A rainbow is typically depicted at high saturation, so we see brighter oranges and red, but I mean, duller rainbows exist when light is poorer, and that color we see as brown can be visible on those rainbows. Having brown, still, is like having steel blue or fluorescent pink, though, they're typically not at the same lightness. 23:01, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

i would like to state my thoughts on the flag, which can be seen above, has nothing to with aesthetics. adding a black/brown or what have you, to signyfy black lgbt folk. no problem with that. its a repurposing that limits the scope of the current rainbow flag to give focus black lgbt. something to march under during pride.

it is though a different flag. the current rainbow flag is meant to represent lgbt in all its forms, diverse and inclusive. no one colour is meant to represent a specific group. no one group given prominence nor conspicuous through their absence. who has the right to say who is or isnt represented? its meant to be the broadest of churches and defining just who is welcome limits just who is.

two flags, to different meanings. they can exist side by side. i dont give a shit about the aesthetics. its a fucking eyesore whatever you do with it. thats not the issue here. AMassiveGay (talk) 05:12, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I would say that the black LGBTQ+ with their chronic unrepresentation in nearly everything gay and LGTBQ+ have every right to say that they are unrepresented. They have every right to believe and state that the addition of a black stripe to the flag would help (which it would). It is entirely reasonable for excluded groups to ask for inclusion...even if efforts to address that inclusion will mess up a flag's colour scheme or the "original intention" of that flag. Throw in 25 stripes if necessary. It's a bloody inclusion flag after all. Shabi  DOO  14:11, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * i contend that the inclusion does not make the flag more inclusive at all. it singles out a specific group as distinct separate from the rest. thats fine if you want a flag for own specific group but not if you want a flag inclusive for all groups. and black lgbt are not the only marginalised group within the lgbt world. as i said earlier why dont indian/pakisani or chinese get a mention on the flag? why not muslim? if you make specific reference to different groups it becomes too specific - your group not on there? guess you dont count. and it wont make fuck all difference to the marginalisation of these groups. its not the flags design that excludes anybody its lgbt culture that has issues that need addressing and doesnt live up to the ideal the flag represents. its the people waving it that make it less than welcoming. this fix only only creates a flag that actually does exclude.


 * there is nothing wrong with the current design for inclusiveness. you'd be hard pressed to come up with anything better. there is no addition that can make it more inclusive. if there is baggage around the flag that make some groups unable to ever feel its for them then a different flag is required. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:53, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed it is LGTBQ+ culture which excludes them. And the mental gymnastics that people in that community will go through to deny adding a black stripe to the bloody flag...is just another example of this. And your cynicism is just one more. Adding the stripe may make a tiny minuscule difference for non-black people changing their attitudes but if it does make a number of black-LGTBQ+ people feel more included then that is a win. There is literally nothing to lose adding that stripe except aesthetic reasons (which you admittedly don't care about) and some ridiculous idea that those colours include all...when actually they don't. You've also admitted you don't care about the flag...so I don't see why you really care about adding another black stripe. All of this...every argument I've read so far...just seems like more resistance to black inclusion (even if it is tiny little step...one that is admittedly disruptive)...which is the story of the last 500 years. I somehow expected a little different from at least some of the people at rationalwiki. Shabi  DOO  15:19, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * how does the existing flag exclude anyone? it includes because it does not specify a colour for anyone group if you think otherwise, which colour is mine? the lack of specificity allows for a infinite variety of identities to be accepted within. no matter how fringe that group maybe. (i read somewhere colous rep magic and nature and just general bullshit. it works best as a rainbow - rainbow coaliton, rainow nation - rainbow means everyone).


 * specifying/adding a colour specifically for black people is not inclusion. its not even lip service to inclusion. its separates out, makes clear they are not part of the rest. if the intent is to draw atention to issues faced, its fine. that works.


 * for a flag meant to be as inclusive as possible? not so well. if that stripe means this group, and that one another then which colour is mine? i am lumped in with those in the green stripe? i should have my own colour. i am not being facetious here. if one stripe has specific meaning, for a specific group, then do you not wonder which is your group? what if you do not have one?


 * i care not for flags, but if there is flag for lgbt people then i would rather something that does not divide us into myriad of different tribes like everything else meant for lgbt seems to. it doesnt matter which colour you belong to on the flag. you can be any or all them. that is the point. the black strip has a different point. a valid point but it is very much a different flag. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:02, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I see...adding a black stripe would cause "division". That sounds like racist republican "talking points" amassivegay. Shabi  DOO  18:08, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If you have to say that someone “sounds like they’re using racist talking points” instead of just calling what they’re saying racist, you’re being intellectually dishonest. It’s frustrating talking to someone who wilfully misinterprets everything you have to say, which makes it a good strategy if you want to get them to stop replying and give you the last word, but it isn’t good for much else. Christopher (talk) 20:13, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

No Christopher. They are the same racist talking points that republicans use to make talking about justice and identity politics one of "creating" division rather than trying to actually bring about equality. I don't however believe that amassivegay is using them in the same racist way. Calling him racist would be fucking ridiculous because I know he is not. The result however is the same fucking bullshit as always, excuses to avoid inclusion because of a resistance to recognising and admitting systemic exclusion within communities. I'm simply surprised to hear amassivegay of all people use that kind of terminology (adding a fucking black stripe actively "creates division" wtf?). Easy to say when you are white and have a level of privileged within your own marginalised community. By that same stupid bloody logic even having a rainbow flag at all "creates division". Even using the term LGTBQ+ would be "divisive" under that logic. Zheesh. So no Christopher...I'm simply pointing out that amassivegay is using the same flawed narrative that the people he generally doesn't support (a group of people who actively work against equality and justice) uses. All of us have very different levels of dedication to promoting social justice (and we all have our limits) and inclusion. It's always revealing when you find people's limits. Shabi DOO  20:42, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not very keen on being too anal-retentive about flags either, since the spectrum of human sexuality can be more thought of as a big blur versus sharply delineated categories. (So my idea "all inclusive flag" would probably look more like an RGB color picker, I guess. :) ) The new flag I guess already attempts to incorporate a Trans Pride flag and add some elements representing racial diversity. Fair enough, I could take it either way. A flag is just a symbol. The design that wins boils down to mob opinion. Doesn't matter much to me in the end, not worth much arguing about. The real argument is about pushing back against those that marginalize a community. The rest is just window dressing. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 20:55, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * [EC]“You used the word division in a discussion about race, something republicans sometimes also do” isn’t much of an argument. It’s not “[the] same stupid bloody logic”, it’s just the same word. You’re thinking in very black and white terms, with the black stripe flag being “more inclusive” and the regular rainbow being “less inclusive”, as if that’s something you can quantify.
 * Not really the point here and we all know what you mean, but I’ll mention that AMassiveGay is British, as am I, and you’re using an American political party as a stand-in for conservatism in general. Christopher (talk) 20:57, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Luckily Christopher the conservative party of the UK doesn't vocally use arguments like "the politics of division" nearly as much as American republicans do and I certainly don't feel like mentioning by name single conservative or far-right party in all English speaking countries and the countries of all community members here on rationalwiki when mentioning the American Republicans as a reference most readers here will understand will do. Do you really want to digress into this kind of pointless distraction?
 * If black LGTBQ+ organisations ask for people to use the version of a rainbow flag with a black stripe in their hopes of bringing about more inclusion then that is "all the quantification" that should be needed. PanGalactic has probably made the most insightful argument so far that it will come down to "mob rule" as it usually does. The black LGTBQ+ people will be ignored and the overwhelmingly represented white LGTBQ+ will keep things the way they are. I personally would prefer the flag be done away with. Second best is adding a bloody black stripe in the hopes of addressing fairly reasonable request from black LGBTQ+ groups whose voices are rarely listened to anyways. They likely won't be listened to in the near future. So goes the the near glacial speed of social justice. No surprise. Shabi  DOO  21:10, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what the first part of your comment meant. You could’ve just said conservatives or right wingers, but I did say it wasn’t really the point.
 * You’re still thinking in very black and white terms. “Black LGBTQ+ people are all demanding that the rainbow flag have a black stripe added it to it under all circumstances” is just not true. Your unshakeable conviction that you’re right, and that anyone who disagrees with you is standing in the way of Inclusion and Social Justice, is making you needlessly combative. As you’ve said many times in this thread, it’s just a stripe on a flag. Christopher (talk) 21:22, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Ahhh...the being "pointlessly combative" schtick after you just strawmanned the shit out of my argument. Nowhere to go from there. I will let you have the last word on this and concede your argument Christopher. You're right. It's just a stripe on the flag and doesn't matter. Shabi  DOO  21:49, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

[E.C.] I think who is right and who is wrong about what is more inclusive in a situation like this can be solved unambiguously by thinking in terms of sets and operations on them. (I also feel unsure about bringing this kind of argument to people with strongly clashing thinking styles, and I admit I'm prejudiced against "SJW types" in general in that regard.)

Imagine a set of all individuals who support any social justice causes. Each more specific movement, or position aligned with a cause, makes for the sub-set of people who support that. A flag is here simply a symbol for a position, so flags differ in meaning when the positions are not identical. (This ignores aesthetics and possibly other things, it's the weakest part of my argument.) The rainbow flag symbolizes set A. A different set B is advocacy for equality for black people.

AMassiveGay is arguing as if the disputed combined flag represents the intersection of A and B, something smaller and less inclusive. Certainly, those who belong to both are fewer in numbers than those who belong to one, the other, or both.

Shabidoo is arguing as if the disputed combined flag represents the union of two things, but it is not the union of A and B. That's made clear enough in that some supporters both of A and of B will reject it. Shabidoo further argues that the unmodified pride flag does not symbolize A, but instead A minus any members also in B, meaning that supposedly the union sought is the restoration of A from this phantom subtraction. (In the absence of any such subtraction, there is nothing more to include, hence unambiguously no point.) But as noted, this doesn't match who supports it.

In summary, what AMassiveGay wrote seems to add up, while what Shabidoo wrote does not seem to add up. But beyond that, I leave the rest sketchy. And as a final thought, I think Shabidoo's thinking may be too fuzzy to be captured by what I wrote. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 22:47, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No that is not my argument. My argument is that the stated downsides to allowing a stripe (like aesthetic concerns or the supposed idea that doing so would somehow diminish the sense of "unity" which is silly enough to me), even if true which I don't believe, are trivial compared with the potential benefits (helping a group of the most excluded people in the West feel more included within an already excluded group). I also see eerie parallels between this kind of resistance and past resistance to accommodation of marginalised groups. I can respect amassivegay's position that it would "diminish unity in the flag" despite disagreeing it. I am saddened by the suggestion that doing so would "create division". Shabi  DOO  23:04, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * [EC]Without any exaggeration, that is the worst serious argument for a point of view I agree with I’ve ever heard. Christopher (talk) 23:06, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay Christopher. Once again I'm happy to let you have the last word and concede your point that it is a terrible argument and that it's just a black stripe that doesn't matter. Shabi  DOO  23:10, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I, for one, salute your determination to die on the hill of rotten design in support of a token gesture. Dulce et decorum est pro vexilla mori. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 23:25, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I was talking about ApofyGnrgiol’s argument, not yours, which was obvious from the indentation, the fact I said I agreed with the point being made, and the [EC] at the start. If you actually were “letting me have the last word” you’d just stop responding, instead you respond to comments I make that aren’t directed at you with smug, meaningless nonsense. Christopher (talk) 06:38, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Ahhhh. Yes it does seem so on reading it again and it should have been obvious had I not been so quick in trying to maintain my unshakeable conviction to be right. Don't let my smugness keep you from having the last word. Please have the last word in your following reply. Shabi  DOO  07:16, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Yellow stripe
While we're at it, the yellow stripe needs to be removed. As a part-Chinese member of LGBT, I feel that this stripe embodies the old racist stereotype of Chinese people having small eyes and yellow skin, and such associated stereotypes. But since Chinese people are highly marginalized, we do need another colour to represent Chinese LGBT; one that is not racist. For example a Red & Gold stripe would be of great signifance to the Chinese culture. Kauri0.o (talk) 01:14, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Apparently yellow represents: "sunlight". That should be entirely obvious. I mean when you look at that flag...clearly red equals life and yellow equals sunlight. The flag equals unity. But it also equals life and sunlight. Not any particular group of people. So there is no racism nor particular racial inclusion. Just life and sunlight and harmony and spirit. By the way...the hot pink equals sex. Since the stereotype goes that LGTBQ+ rabbit one another all day long...maybe the pride flag should be just one big pink field. Shabi  DOO  01:47, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Stop whitewashing. Yellow represents the disgusting Chinese stereotype. I updated the LGBT flag with a Chinese-race-sensitive design. This should be the new LGBT flag, amen. Please champion this cause, lest you be seen as propogating racial divison.
 * Inclusive_LGBT_flag.png
 * Kauri0.o (talk) 02:42, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Jesus, either you're being a bad parody of a progressive or ignorant. I have yet to see any evidence that the color was supposed to represent Asians in the flag's context. It's just going to create more division and alienate other cultures. 16:48, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * And the absence of the white stripe? I did mention there should be 25 stripes if need be. I'm pretty underwhelmed by this flags lack of inclusivity. Though in all sincerity...while there may be the slightest possibility that this flag is somewhere in the vicinity of mockery...I think it is better looking and less ridiculous than the current one. Shabi  DOO  02:45, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Adding a white stripe in the name of "inclusivity"??? Whites are responsible for all the persecution and racism towards black and chinese LBGT throughout all history and do not need more representation in any aspect of society. You will see white stripes are used in the racist colonial flags of the UK, for example. (and red to signify the flowing blood (money) shed by other races.) You must be trolling. Kauri0.o (talk) 03:53, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, and the very next thing I was going to suggest was adding the union jack in the upper left field along with 999 coloured stripes to represent all 999 oppressed marginalised people all to this day demanding a voice and inclusivity (to ensure fairness). What about green to represent the oppressed LGTBQ+ martians? Shabi  DOO  07:22, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I’d have to agree with Massive on this. Adding a black strip doesn’t include black people but to me just reinforces an idea that you don’t consider them to be represented under the rainbow when everyone is. It becomes about something else than what it is meant to be.Machina (talk) 13:11, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm going to make that flag in Minecraft. 13:15, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I have an idea. add every color ever, but one color only appears in a stripe. Like the current flag, but just with every color ever in a gradient. Gets rid of the color issue, but creates a pattern issue. I am sort of saying this ironically. 104.225.183.70 (talk) 16:07, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Symbols
You all make a lot of fuss over what amounts to abstract patterns. 16:11, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Reading through this thread as a Cis Black person is interesting. Though I generally see the point trying to be made, amassivegay hits the nail on the head in my opinion. Though Black liberation and LGBT+ are connected, the patterns/symbols don't really matter.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:56, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Tradition
I am a gentile who worked for a Jewish organization.

This whole discussion about keeping the rainbow flag the same, reminds of the song Tradition in the movie Fiddler on the Roof. It's like the LGBTQ+ movement has turned into a religion.

I love the songs in the movie Fiddler on the Roof. Exim721 (talk) 00:25, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Is this a Kensock or...? 01:47, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Is Diet Coke really that bad to drink?
I’m trying to be healthier and part of that is not drinking soda like it’s water. I’ve seen multiple takes on diet soda and the health effects but can’t tell what’s just hysteria and what’s actually the truth of it.Machina (talk) 13:17, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Just don't go with it. I know this is coming from someone who doesn't like the taste of soda, but I would advise against it. Switch to chocolate milk or something. 13:28, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This, like many other food questions is about the dose makes the poison. In other words it depends on whether you live on it or it's just another part of your diet.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:24, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I just do not trust aspartame and tend to avoid it; the label says it's bad for phenylketonurics, but it would seem to burden some aspect of normal physiology as well. Saccharin is probably much better for you, but it was bad for rats or something back in the 1970s and is no longer available in soda form in the USA.  Every once in a while none of them will probably kill you fast enough to make a difference, but the typical drinker of diet soda makes them a staple.  I drink plain club soda or seltzer water - much more refreshing, without the sweetness and thickness - or an occasional soda with sugar.  Nothing against corn syrup either, it's all just sugar, and some claim that it doesn't taste as good as cane sugar but the difference eludes me. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 14:35, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Well I drink it with just about every meal and I’ve been trying to lose weight lately by cutting it. I’m like 6’2 and 165 lbs.Machina (talk) 18:55, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * 6"2' and 165 lbs? Then I don't think you need to worry about gaining too much weight from the soda. Maybe it's the sugar you're worried about? 19:26, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You should not be worried. It's water, caramel color, and sweetener, and aspartame is one of the most extensively tested food additives in the world. Studies have not always been careful to account for confounding factors, like people might be drinking diet soda because they are already unhealthy, and are trying to improve their health (which could make the soda seem to be associated with poor health, since unhealthy people are drinking it). The biggest worry you have should be for your teeth, since diet soda is still acidic. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒   talk  22:12, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Take the following with a grain of salt; reading on Wikipedia suggests any controversies are unsubstantiated. I remember reading somewhere about diet coke potentially being bad for you in that when you drink something so sweet, your body expects that it will be receiving a large number of calories. But since there are no calories, your body gets confused and wants calories even more than before, and/or stores more fat. Kauri0.o (talk) 02:45, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There's a few studies that show an insulin response to various sweeteners, though not one consistent with sugar. IIRC one common sweetener actually had a small negative insulin response. The next step would be to prove that the insulin response without the presence of sugar contributes to diabetes, which although it doesn't intuitively seem unreasonable it would be near impossible to construct a study that could conclude either way. McUrist (talk) 08:37, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Bogus music
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rToxTj6vjE

Kind of in a pop punk/emo mood, just learned about Tramp Stamps. Can't put this track on the RW playlist, it doesn't exist on Spotify.

I never liked Paramore or MCR. Good Charlotte was a reason I stopped listening to the radio. So... what if I actually am the worst? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 09:10, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I exclusively listen to lyric-less instrumental music. I only make an exception for Sabaton and Stratovarius.  MirrorIrorriM (talk) 14:02, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * But why, tho 16:12, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It's Mirror's way of saying he only listens to Mario music. 23:30, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * My reason is I like to let my mind wander while I listen to music. I place my own meaning onto the progressions and feeling of a song, but when the song has lyrics it forces a meaning.  Because I do a lot of writing, I find anything that helps get the creative juices flowing important.  MirrorIrorriM (talk) 12:50, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Makes sense (btw to Duce a lot of video game music and soundtrack listerners can be adverse to lyrics but usually for reasons I think don't make much sense) but honestly there's always some sort of meaning in music, which you can pick up mood from chord progressions, tempo, etc., especially deriving from the title of the music. On the other hand, I rarely know the full lyrics of songs I listen to, as I treat the voice and words as just types of instruments. I do pick up some meaning from lyrics but some lyrics are also entirely nonsensical (a lot of rave music is like that). What about songs with lyrics in a foreign language? Anyhow I can't really listen ti any music while doing like math, but I regularly listen to all sorts of music doing art. 17:50, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Foreign language music works fine. Then since I'm not distracted by trying to understand the lyrics things work out again.  I also have a hearing disorder which before it was treated caused me to go into a panic if I heard certain sounds like chewing or clicking sounds.  This caused me to have a fear of other people.  Lyrics reminded me of other people, so for that reason they made me uncomfortable for a long time.  Music actually has had a very important role in my life, because it was the only thing that could calm me down once I started panicking.  MirrorIrorriM (talk) 01:44, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, this all makes sense. Why do you make exceptions for Sabaton and Stratovarius though? I like Stratovarius but it's because I like the genre for it. 00:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Honestly? Because they were some of the first music I started branching out into when I got treated for my hearing problem.  Also Sabaton's lyrics are typically about historical events, which leads the mind to creative places.  Stratovarius' lyrics in songs like Destiny or Will the Sun Rise are very broad thematically.  Destiny could just as easily be a song sung by people as a space ship takes off, the crowning achievement of a civilization; or at the end of a great war, with people finally becoming fed up with a long conflict.  MirrorIrorriM (talk) 01:18, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Look, I am WAY into lyrics, I was a folkie for a part of my life. While my friends wore Marley shirts, I got a Leonard Cohen shirt, and I don't even really like Leonard Cohen.  And I have never heard of either of these groups but I looked them up.  I don't like this star battle metal, and I appreciate that you guys want different things out of your star battle metal.  I get it, I'm the bad guy.  The problem I see with Tramp Stamps isn't any more the lyrics than I saw with MCR or Goodcharlotte or Paramore.  It's the production.  And I don't mean just well produced, I mean commercially produced to add what tastes good to a genre that probably never would have seen the radio.  Art and identity are so closely interwoven, I don't actually have a starry bright-toned sweep metal bone in my body, and I appreciate what Leonard Cohen was doing, but you ever hear Joan Baez?  But if you do like that starry, fast, staccato, undynamic guitar salad, whatever, enjoy it.  I do believe in pop sensibility, and I do remember when Dragonforce struck a chord with everyone.  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:00, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Music has to have a certain amount of energy to it or I find it painful to listen to. When music slows down I start to feel anxious and uncomfortable.  I tried listening to Def Leppard the other day and just couldn't do it.  MirrorIrorriM (talk) 12:14, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

When I hear Anti-Vaxxers/Pro-Plague people say that Big Pharma makes billions from the COVID vaccine
I think that the anti-vaxxer/pro-plague crowd fails to realize that production costs, buying lab equipment, paying the employees, taxes and the utilities would outweigh the profits.

Can someone give the anti-vaxxer/pro-plague crowd a book on economics. --Agimi i Apokalipsit (talk) 22:26, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Vaccines are profitable. So what? Unless their argument going to be something like, say, Elizabeth Warren's call out a couple years ago to have government manufacture generics. it's certainly worth exploring exactly how market cutthroat we should make something that also happens to be a public good, particularly given how expensive the American medical monopolies are these days. (There are negatives to governments taking control of medicine, of course... for a start, politicalization of medicine, a very possible outcome. So it'd be a debate without a clear answer.) But I doubt this is the argument. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 22:52, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I know there are some socialist anti-vaxxers, but most AV twats seem very happy with capitalists making profits in other areas, e.g. selling guns, alcohol, Coca-Cola. --Annanoon (talk) 12:27, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I love the people who are anti-vax being afraid vaccinated people shedding something, which has resulted in them wearing masks and physical distancing from vaccinated people. Brilliant.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:48, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Opposed to private enterprise making profits?? doesn't that make them ......   communist??!! :O Aloysius the Gaul (talk)

Got my second COVID shot today
When do I turn into a zombie? That would be awesome. --Agimi i Apokalipsit (talk) 16:52, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * They need to fire up your chip first.
 * I had my first Astra Zenica a few days ago. So presumably I'm getting a thrombosis soon. Or maybe getting struck by lightening - as the odds of both seem to be about the same.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 19:56, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Ivermectin as Covid-19 treatment?
So, recently my state in India recommended 5 doses of the anti-parasitic drug, Ivermectin, for everyone over 18. It was reported over here as a drug that scientists approved in peer-reviewed paper, without any mention of controversy (like in this article). I'd never heard of it, so I decided to google around, and I found that there's supposedly been a movement to get the drug approved worldwide, mostly by the FLCCC. The problem is that the language used seems a lot like the language used by conspiracy theorists, with claims that data is being surpressed and such. Another problem is I can't just dismiss it like the homeopathic or ayurvedic drugs our government pushed before either. What do you think? Is there anything to this or should I warn my friends and relatives against its use? This thing has got me seriosuly confused. FeedMyHead (talk) 15:39, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Warn. E.g. the EMA in Europe sees not enough evidence for its usefulness in treating Covid. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/ema-advises-against-use-ivermectin-prevention-treatment-covid-19-outside-randomised-clinical-trials &mdash; Unsigned, by: 93.226.5.173 / talk
 * I'm reading various sources which say it's not effective or doubtfully effective. here and here for example.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:53, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You must be from Goa? India unfortunately has been known to authorize some bullshit healthcare during this pandemic, and this is basically hydroxychloroquine all over again. Ivermectin normally treats parasitic worms in livestock (as well as some human and pet parasite diseases), hence it's relatively cheap and available. Alas, although there are some preliminary studies on the anti-viral nature of this drug there is nothing solid yet. To be honest the to me makes it seem very doubtful that this will work.  PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 19:09, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, our state leader was proud to declare that we were the first state to integrate conventional medicine with Ayurveda back in April 2020. Thankfully most actual doctors here don't support Ayurveda. FeedMyHead (talk) 09:40, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Heck - thought this reminded me of something - 1994 add for "Ivomec" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXpTnMnYf-4 Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 23:01, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Prevention is worth a pound of cure. If you are in a at risk population in terms of increased morbity if you get Covid-19, get out of India or go to a remote part of India. Rugbyfan (talk) 00:05, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Ivermectin meta analysis. "Conclusions: Meta-analyses based on 18 randomized controlled treatment trials of ivermectin in COVID-19 have found large, statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance. Furthermore, results from numerous controlled prophylaxis trials report significantly reduced risks of contracting COVID-19 with the regular use of ivermectin. Finally, the many examples of ivermectin distribution campaigns leading to rapid population-wide decreases in morbidity and mortality indicate that an oral agent effective in all phases of COVID-19 has been identified." 192․168․1․42 (talk) 11:18, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes; it is best advised to wait for the full trials. That's a meta analysis of largely preprint small studies. Hydroxychloroquine had a few puff pieces in the early analysis as well, as noted in this article. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 11:51, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It doesn't help that a lot of people who've been supporting its use for months before this are conspiracy theorists, anti-maskers and anti-vaxxers like her (a Goan doctor, by the way, who has been tweeting/retweeting complete nonsense since the pandemic began,).FeedMyHead (talk) 09:40, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That link to the paper failed. I wonder if it's being retracted? A working one is here: Their conclusion seems quite overstated, "… ivermectin should be globally and systematically deployed in the prevention and treatment of COVID-19." In February, Merck, the patent holder and still a major manufacturer of the drug, had a fairly stern warning against it's usage for COVID:


 * No scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against COVID-19 from pre-clinical studies;
 * No meaningful evidence for clinical activity or clinical efficacy in patients with COVID-19 disease, and;
 * A concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies.
 * We do not believe that the data available support the safety and efficacy of ivermectin beyond the doses and populations indicated in the regulatory agency-approved prescribing information.
 * Bongolian (talk) 20:00, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * We've tried in Brazil a few months ago. The beloved Trump clone we have as a president thought it was more secure than than vaccines. You can check the results, things here might not be as bad as in India, but man, they are bad. GeeJayK (talk) 22:42, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * FWEIW ivermectin is available OTC in the USA in the form of horse wormer. I dosed myself with it a couple of years ago to solve a completely unrelated problem, not really medical, for which it worked quite well when all else had failed.  Horse wormer tastes awful.  Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 04:32, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Remembering Douglas Adams
He died about 20 years ago today. I remember when they announced it on the news, and I felt pissed. I never listened to "A Hitchhiker's Guide to the Universe", but I knew how important it was. — Jeh2ow Damn son!  15:50, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I remember his death too - though I didn't realize this was the anniversary oh his death. I listened to the Hitchhikers radio series, watched the TV series, hated the film, read all the books. I've even got the CD boxed set series of the radio program.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:50, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Sometimes I wish Doug hadn't died, because if he stuck around long enough to see Wikipedia, a formidable Guide to the Galaxy/Earth, I'm sure he would have lost his mind. Or even if he'd lived long enough to see iPhones and tablets and whatnot. It's the what-ifs about a person's death that intrigue me. TheJakeHolmesVersion (talk) 18:59, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I kind of doubt that he would have "lost his mind" at seeing how the future turned out. I'm just a year younger than he would have been and iPhones, tablets and even wikis don't freak me out. I suspect a science fiction author would have been even less prone to future shock.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 19:52, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I like to think he would have edit-bombed either Humanity or his own page at least once: "Mostly harmless." Artificius (talk) 00:20, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * He did help found from what I recall (which, though tiny in traffic, still exists!), so at least he was able to get a small formative taste of his guide concept in action. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 19:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Article writing question
Don't know if this is the right place to ask for writing help, but I didn't see much on the subject elsewhere (which might have been a consequence of me not looking hard enough). I want to write a fun article. My question is, is there something special I need to do when writing to designate it as fun, or do I just add the prefix Fun: in the title and it gets sorted? TheJakeHolmesVersion (talk) 00:33, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That's all you need to do basically. You can type "Fun:Xyz" in the search box, where 'xyz' is your article name, and if there's no article already, then you'll get a response of:
 * Create the page "Fun:Xyz" on this wiki! See also the page found with your search.
 * Click on the 'Fun:Xyz' part and you can start your article. Bongolian (talk) 00:57, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks dude. TheJakeHolmesVersion (talk) 01:17, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Pathetic right-wing populists be like:
Seriously, why are some people this stupid???????????????? Unclescrooge (talk) 23:43, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "the Democrats have ALWAYS been evil and the parties NEVER switched!!"
 * "Andrew Jackson and James K. Polk were such a great presidents!!111!1111!!11!!1"
 * These right wing arguments are a beacon to our failing education system. Those arguments are so damn stupid. --Agimi i Apokalipsit (talk) 23:47, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "Beacon to our failing education system" the right-wing populists wrote the education system of course it's failing TheJakeHolmesVersion (talk) 01:23, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Obviously you know the context I meant when I typed that. --Agimi i Apokalipsit (talk) 01:34, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Trolling is a lot older than the internet. Some people will say things they know will annoy refined sorts of people. Maybe what they do is more like hitting a baseball than trying to make sense; or, maybe it's like a hotdog eating contest. Why would anyone eat fifty freaking hotdogs? Someone has the answer.UncleKrampus (talk) 02:37, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Eating 50 hotdogs is how you impress the chicks, bro. 16:07, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Another question -_-
Something else I cannot find any help for. When I try to upload an image, it says there is an error in 'storing the image to the stash.' The image in question is edited and falls under fair use. Is this normal, and how do I bypass it? Or get the image to upload. It fails to upload both in the page and on the upload page. TheJakeHolmesVersion (talk) 13:33, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This comment was copied to: RationalWiki:Technical support. Bongolian (talk) 17:53, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

503 Error
I'm getting a "503 Error Backend Fetch failed" error when trying to open WIGO World. Anybody else experiencing this? RoundeTheeHorne (talk) 21:03, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This should be in tech support, but I’ve been getting 503 errors accessing that page. Whole server’s been slow today, lots of tech problems, no one is sure why. David Gerard, one of the two people with access to the RW servers, is trying to fix the issue as of a few minutes ago. Christopher (talk) 21:06, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Right-Wing Threat In France and the West
I know Ken's sock posted about this the other day but now there is a second letter. Politico.eu wrote a story that had this quote I found disturbing: My emphasis. The threat of Right-Wing violence is always present in the US, but this seems especially concerning that members of the French military seem so matter of fact.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:30, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Right wing terrorism is a growing threat sadly. I swear that they want civil war. --Agimi i Apokalipsit (talk) 23:34, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Like the United States, France has a small segment of the military that are Nazis "far right extremists". One of the top pairings for "Valeurs Actuelles" when you Google search them is the phrase extrême droite, aka far-right. So take anything in this source with the same sort of wariness applied to Breitbart and Fox News and whatnot. A cover story they did on the Roma that got them into a wee bit of trouble with the less Nazi side of the French public, for instance, should look depressingly familiar to what happens with how far-right news outlets cover Black people in the US. What's a bit more worrying is that, with Macron fading for now and the left fractured, there is a chance that the (slightly softer edged these days) Marine Le Pen might win the next election cycle (the odds are probably still with Macron, but you never know). Le Pen is too politically smart to be a Trump de Paris IMHO, but it's still not certain how fit she would be to govern, given the unsavory types that hang around the Front National still. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 02:21, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Question: is Le Pen a fascist? I'm being serious here; I'm not sealioning; it's what I've heard about her. 13:21, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting question.
 * On the one hand, she is more moderate than her father, who pretty much everyone could agree was an actual out-and-out fascist who worked with actual far-right terrorists (even literal members of the Nazi war machine) in his early days as a politician. She loves playing the "Well I'm better than my father" card.
 * On the other hand, that difference is often condemned as style, more precisely a less rhetorically controversial style, rather than substance. She gets votes from the same people, courts the support of the same people...at that point we start getting into "When does a right-winger who panders to fascists just become a fascist" territory.-Flandres (talk) 14:29, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I feel like she's on par with Trump in terms of her authoritarian tendencies. But fascism as a definition requires power doesn't it?-RipCityLiberal (talk) 17:40, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia tells me that : "Fascism is a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe." They don't include in this definition some sort of personality cult which would say is probably also necessary.  Presumably people with a desire to bring this situation about would also be Fascists.  (Incidentally, while I think that horseshoe theory is overdone its a pretty good description of North Korea.)
 * Does Le Pen want this society? I honestly don't know enough about her.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 07:21, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * She walks and talks like a potential fascist. I know of few European fascist like party leaders who openly advocate supresión of opposition (it can actually get your party banned in some countries). I have little doubt she would do so indirectly if she could. She would use ultra-nationalism and racism to drive support behind her policies. Thing is...in Europe most far right parties are just protest and provocation parties...they rarely get into power and don't know what to do when they actually win beyond a few small conservative and outrageous policies. As it is almost unthinkable her party would gain a majority in the legislatures so she wouldn't be able to do too much without seriously compromising with them. When the president doesn't have support of the assemblies they can really only do foreign affairs, defence and a few ministerial powers (some policies). That can make life a little ugly for people (and inject toxic narratives into everything) but they hardly can make the kind of executive orders the American president can. So she would be a obnoxious troublemaking president but a pretty lame one.  Shabi  DOO  12:33, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If we are assuming she won a presidential election, wouldn't people aligned with her have done reasonably well in the legislative ones?-Flandres (talk) 18:58, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * She isn't a fascist (fascist = dictatorial and totalitarian tendencies, eg. a recent US president), but like Flanders said, pandering to fascists lands her in questionable territory. I know her admirers say she's very different from her father etc., but if she was so different, she should have started a new party, not try to remodel the old cankered one. Same goes for Jimmie Åkesson in Sweden. Meow Purr 07:20, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * FYI more than 120 so-called "retired US military leaders" created a suspiciously similar letter a short bit ago, albeit with the odeur of Trump politics instead of Le Pen politics. They link to an organization called "flagofficers4america.com", a website created on May 7th, 2021. I seem to be getting a whiff of troll borscht in the air for some reason... PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 18:51, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

It's very rare for any party to ever win an outright majority in European legislatures. A few countries are exceptional such as the UK and until recently in Spain as well as a couple Eastern European examples (sometimes). It only happened in France twice since WWII. European legislatures are almost always governed by coalitions, usually three or more parties working together to govern during alliances that last the length of the legislature. Macron must depend on the support of his party and two partner parties. Those partners are not always sympathetic to his platform which means serious compromise. While due to some terrible fluke she may win the presidential run-off simply as a protest vote against Macron...but there is zero chance in hell her party would gain an outright majority. It is even unlikely parties on the right side of the spectrum would work together with Rassemblement national but that the Prime Minister would be chosen from a more Centrist coalition. Even the grotesque could happen where there was a Far-Right president with a socialist led assembly (it is hardly impossible). In any case, if she won...it would be a victory for ultra-nationalism and racism and the repercussions would last a long time, but she wouldn't really be able to do very much (at least crazy extreme shit). Shabi DOO  19:49, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean she would win an outright majority. I meant that right-wing parties in general would have a majority. She wouldn't be able to do the more extreme things but if the national rally and the republicans hold power together, she could pass still pass some awful stuff, especially where French Muslims are concerned. That is an issue where the right broadly aligns (economics is another).-Flandres (talk) 19:58, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I hate to be that guy but that seems like exact same calculation made by the Wiemar Republic.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 22:56, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes Rip...it is possible that say, if she becomes President...that she could whip up support over one term and then gain a majority in the Assembly through rather shrewd politicing (totally outlandish but hey...you never know). But the odds of her party jumping from 7 seats in the National Assembly now to 289, in one year are, short of a miraculous change in French politics, as close to zero as you usually get. Shabi  DOO  07:23, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Southeast gas shortage tips and advice
To all my fellow Rationalwikians living in the Southeastern region of the United States. Does anyone have any advice and tips on what to do during this panic buy phase due to the colonial pipeline hack. For those that may be unfamiliar with whats going on. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/05/11/gas-shortage-colonial-pipeline/%3foutputType=ampSensaurC-137 (talk) 17:32, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Ride your bicycle. Take a walk. Have a cup of coffee. We all have been shut-ins for over a year. The idea of a few days without gas makes me laugh. UncleKrampus (talk) 19:12, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Some people just need to read Walden and learn to handle a rare shortage. CorpMinicrits (talk) 20:15, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * it just occurred to me this is about petrol isnt it, not gas. bloody yanksAMassiveGay (talk) 11:19, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Novel Writing: Story Prologue
Everyone who lived in Dynami, New Mexico had some sort of military connection. These connections ranged from being an active soldier to simply being the family of a soldier. The constant presence of assorted military personnel cemented that fact.

The City of Dynami was for all intents and purposes, a hub for military training and research. Bootcamps peppered Dynami. Citizens were required by law to receive basic military training; including children.

Nobody questioned the purpose of the basic military training. The reason laid outside the reinforced fencing of the city. A vast majority of New Mexico was occupied by the living dead. Their presence was a daily threat to the survival of mankind.

Sixty-two years ago the bodies of the recently deceased began coming back to life and started eating humans alive. Those bitten by the undead died within a few hours to a day and then came back to eat human flesh.

This began without rhyme or reason. Previously dead people began showing up around the world. The pandemic did not following any normal progression of disease outbreak. Each outbreak began in random portions of the world.

Anybody who died regardless of injury would come back. If a person was gunned down in the streets or died of a heart attack would become an undead. Hospitals became breeding grounds for what would be known as the Reanimation Disease.

Due to the virulence of this plague combined with its seemingly airborne nature, the human population went from eight billion down to a mere seven hundred twenty million. It only took a week for such a death toll to be reached.

What remained of humanity was forced behind security zones. Nobody dared to leave these security zones. Even the surviving military did not like leaving their safe havens. The undead were extremely strong and could withstand major damage.

People could only watch as the undead effectively lead a full scale occupation of many nations. Freedom was now just as dead as the undead who stole it. Humanity stood in chains with no real way to break free. None were brave enough to achieve victory.

This is merely the Prologue. Maybe I can actually make a fucking novel. As for the actual plague, I intend on using an idea from a previous novel that I attempted to write. --Agimi i Apokalipsit (talk) 22:58, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Interesting start, what separates this from any other zombie novel? Are there unique themes? CorpMinicrits (talk) 23:26, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I have yet to work out what themes I want. --Agimi i Apokalipsit (talk) 23:58, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, from a publisher’s perspective, my first question would be how you are going to establish a separate identity in a heavily saturated media genre. I wouldn’t buy a manuscript unless it can stand out from the crowd, or at the very least I wouldn’t put much effort into marketing it. 03:32, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * In terms of themes I am thinking of the following: corporate greed, complacency, racism, poverty and the dangers of pseudoscience. Any suggestions for improvement --Канал 48 (talk) 16:33, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Great, great work. 17:09, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Bad Sales Pitch
Got another leaflet today from those Hellraiser's, those cardigan wearing firebrands "Did you know that modern science proves much of the bible" etc. This Really opened my eyes to ... really woke me up to ... —nah not really. Same neurological diarrhoea, same "Jesus good, Satan bad" ad nauseaum. But oddly enough, what surprises me, is not the ridiculous hyperbole—no, it's how shitty a sales pitch the Jehovah's Witnesses are pitching:

—"But SIRRRR. Don't you want eternal life?",

—To which I can only respond: "YES! Of course ... but not if it's going to be with a bunch of Jehovah's Witnesses!"

"What kinda sales pitch is that!" — Leucippus Talk 13:43, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

coming to a youtube near you
not content with constant 'brian for mayor' adverts (he lost his deposit), this is what i now get as ads from youtube: israeli propaganda AMassiveGay (talk) 18:22, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Israel and Palestine having a minature war
This looks pretty serious. Any chance it could escalate? Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 19:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No one really wants a war right now, so a few people will die, a bunch of buildings will be in ruins, and then nothing will change. CorSock (talk) 19:11, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It'll also likely exacerbate attitudes toward Israel. Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 19:21, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That may not matter much until a more Israel-critical president is elected in America. It's like a somewhat less grimdark version of China and the Kims.-Flandres (talk) 19:27, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think there will be a third intifada. Let‘s hope that Yair Lapid can form a coalition without Bibi. Kevs  Ping!  19:32, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how much scope there would be for a "full scale war". The Israeli war machine is so much bigger and better prepared than the Palestinians that any kind of conventional war would seem to be out of the question. I guess Israel might invade Gaza again, but then they would be left asking "what now?". They would just bring troops closer to the militants who are presently firing rockets at them.  The biggest problem that I see is that there is no obvious way for either side to deescalate.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 19:53, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, unfortunately, it seems like they'll just keep killing each-other. Neither side seems like they'll be willing to have peace again. No trust between Israel and Palestine. CorpMinicrits (talk) 20:12, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the only possible benefit of Lapid forming a government is freeing the prosecution of Netanyahu by the removal of his immunity as PM. It's not likely to change the outcome of the Israeli-Palestinian relations by much if anything. Yair would probably be forced to form a coalition with some right-wingers, but also Benny Gantz (a centrist like Lapid) is currently prosecuting this war. Bongolian (talk) 20:18, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The issue is that the "necessity" of the brutal occupation/ethnic cleansing is ingrained into much of the Israeli leadership across other dividing political lines. It would take a formidable force to alter that. Note that I am not addressing the Palestinian leadership here because it is extremely disingenuous to imply that they are an entity with equal power.-Flandres (talk) 20:30, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Knowing that Palestinian rights groups are cropping up inde jure Israel, the situation might cause problems for the Israeli government. Protests will likely ramp up in Israel. --Agimi i Apokalipsit (talk) 22:50, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, yesss, but then you've to think of what else they're supposed to do. They've tried withdrawal - and they remember Gaza too well. They've offered to return the whole place (except Jerusalem) quite a few times - always refused by PA. So they have no option but to continue occupying. Their expansion of settlements is atrocious though. Meow Purr 15:50, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Under what conditions? And who was leading PA at the time? Who was leading Israel? What's the history between them? You have to ask these questions in politics, since everyone is trying to work an angle. 16:01, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Both leaderships have become more radical - Israel has Netanyahu now and and in Palestine Fatah is weakening. But it's still very easy to see which side is overall more pragmatic, and is yet the target of a vicious bipartisan hate campaign abroad. Much as I dislike Netanyahu, his remark on contrasting what would happen if the Arabs or the Israelis laid down arms is spot on. Meow Purr 07:24, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "But it's still very easy to see which side is overall more pragmatic, and is yet the target of a vicious bipartisan hate campaign abroad." Err... Why are you reflexively trying to defend Israel to me? I don't view anyone in international politics as "good". As for "pragmaticism", Netanyahu's extreme nativist rhetoric reminds me a lot of a certain European party, or a certain orange buffoon... If you want I can point out that Hamas (one of multiple factions within the Palestinian side) isn't much better, having violated international law and used civilians, children, and hospitals as shields for their activities. So, contrary to what you might think, I haven't picked a side in the I-P bullshit. Nor do I plan to, since they're both shit. Nor do I need to since, get this, I'm an American living on another continent, not a civilian in the region having to cope with shitty leaders. 14:47, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Relax, I never said you took a side; I was just generally remarking on the matter. Meow Purr 03:26, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't see there being a resolution to this until Israel has legislative parties that take two state solution seriously in majority. Sure, Hamas wouldn't go for that, but Hamas is only a thing because Netanyahu has actively compromised the more moderate Fatah. Likud lives out of conflict with Palestinians. Likewise Hamas lives out of conflict with Israel. They need each other.

If Israel would recognize the Abbas-Shtayyeh lead Palestine as sovereign nation, and pull back from occupied territories (including the illegal settlements of course), Hamas' dick would shrink like it was nuclear winter. Of course that would cause Likuds metaphorical penis to shrink too, so they're not going to do that. In the meantime BDS-movement is our best hope. Force Israelites to throw the pro Apartheid parties out by draining their economy. No major nations are going to go for that though, so we need to act as individuals. A massive collaboration of individuals. 18:09, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hehe nice joke... If Israel withdrew all that would happen is that Hamas gets a proper base for "the final jihad" or something like that.

YOU'LL NEVER TAKE ME ALIVE!!!!
...I scream at the anti-maskers trying to sick the communist lapdogs on me so they can try to force me to take the FAKEccine and sign away my freedom under admiralty law. I am a person not an individual and I do not consent to the laws of the corporation known as the United States of America Inc!!!! Your violence against my individual liberty violates the NAP!!!!! 21:36, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Then I have no choice but to denounce you to the CDC secret police. You brought this on yourself, comrade. 21:40, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The NIH Brown Shirts will forcefully give you the gene therapy. --Agimi i Apokalipsit (talk) 21:45, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Prepare for your state mandated femboization by order of Iosif Biden Comrade General Pootis (talk) 14:47, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Priming soymilk canisters for intravenous injection into TRAITARRRRRR'S!!!! subject's nipples in 3... 2... 1... 18:04, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

🇰🇪: Joe Biden will have to metamorphosize to Donald Trump to get Republicans to support him
A Monmouth poll this month showed that only 36% of Republicans said they had received at least one shot of the vaccine -- compared with 67% of Democrats and 47% of independents -- and a stunning 43% of Republicans said they would likely never get the vaccine.

In order to get Republicans to rally for Covid-19 vaccination, Joe Biden is going to have to be more bipartisan.

If Biden doesn't get GOP cooperation for a vaccination drive, the USA may never reach herd immunity.

This is Biden's biggest and most important challenge. If he doesn't rise to the occasion, the Covid-19 pandemic could dog his presidency. KH-2 (talk) 22:39, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * 'In order to get Republicans to rally for Covid-19 vaccination, Joe Biden is going to have to be more bipartisan'
 * I'm sorry, the party of personal responsibility needs the President to be more bipartisan? FOH.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 22:59, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The party who's standard bearer spent MONTHS downplaying the severity of a global pandemic, resulting in hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths, and who 75% don't even believe Biden was elected fairly? They're the ones that need something from President Biden. FOH.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Nixon went to China. Trump had a bromance with Kim Jong-un that netted some results.


 * Biden is going to be more bipartisan to have some bargaining leverage to elicit Republican support for vaccination. He has no other bargaining chips than can be used except bipartisanship.


 * Right now, there is a perverse incentive for Republicans to have Biden fail to conquer the pandemic in the USA. He has to somehow get them more partial credit for tackling the pandemic. KH-2 (talk) 23:30, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You're a troll, but to clarify, the GOP is pro more people dying of a preventable disease, has to be the most on the nose description of the modern GOP. Good job.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 00:00, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Neither the Democrats or Republicans are for people dying of a preventable disease. But there is indifference and inertia. Right now, there is starting to be more vaccine than Americans willing to get vaccinated in some areas. Joe Biden has to do something to break this trajectory.

Tackling Black/Hispanic vaccine hesitancy is a challenge (African-Americans have a history of being treated poorly by the medical system. Tuskegee Syphilis Study, etc.).

But the largest vaccine-resistant population is Republicans. So he has to break this logjam. He has no other choice. Playing the blame game and trying to blame Republicans is not going to work. Because as the Democrat President Harry Truman said, "The buck stops here". Many Americans will blame Biden if he fails to conquer the pandemic.

A good economy helps presidents getting reelected. And an ongoing pandemic in the USA is not going to help the American economy. KH-2 (talk) 00:18, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It's worse than I thought. Vaccination rates are down 42% compared to last month. Several states are cancelling orders for more vaccine.


 * The Biden Administration has to be much more aggressive in tackling vaccine hesitancy. The Biden Administration should have regular vaccine press conferences with question and answer sessions. Have more vaccine ambassadors for various demographic segments of the USA. India shows the danger of being complacent. KH-2 (talk) 02:02, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Won’t work. This isn’t a “hesitancy” or ignorance problem. This is an aggressive narcissism and reflexive contrarianism problem. We’re being dragged down by the 60% of Americans who are selfish fucking idiots. The same people who are collapsing our civilization as a whole. 02:05, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Four months ago, racial and ethnic differences in vaccination acceptance were large but they have since narrowed and no longer pose a major obstacle to the vaccination campaign. According to KFF, vaccine refusal stands at 20% for African Americans, 19% for Whites, and 16% for Latinos.


 * So Republicans are one the biggest logjams.


 * Narcissism and selfishness is an issue. But Donald Trump ranks very high on narcissm and he got vaccinated.


 * It comes down to trust and convenience. Republicans are apt to trust Republicans more. So Biden needs their help. He is going to have to give concessions to Republicans in exchange for more Republican support for vaccination. KH-2 (talk) 02:22, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Everyone who predicts gloomy outcomes here should consider: if I thought Trump was going to be re-elected in 2020, maybe I'm not so good at predicting the future.UncleKrampus (talk) 02:25, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Mark my words and mark them well. Joe Biden is going to have to get Twitter to unban Donald Trump in exchange for Trump barnstorming the USA extolling the benefits of vaccination.


 * You heard it first here, gentlemen. And when it comes to pass, being the magnanimous person I am, I will not rub your face in it. KH-2 (talk) 02:48, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * A few slight problems with that prediction. One, Twitter is a privately owned business, so unless you want to nationalize Twitter, Dorsey can tell Biden to go fuck himself. Oh and Two because Trump did this little tiny thing called inciting multiple crimes. And because he's been spouting insane conspiracy theories with fuck all in the way of evidence, something investors and advertisers aren't too keen on having their brands near. So Ken, unless you want to abolish capitalism (which Biden isn't going to do, period, take it from an actual anti-capitalist) you can kiss your dreams of a government mandated reinstatement of Trump's account goodbye. Finally, so much for "small government"... 03:00, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

GrammarCommie, it was a joke and not a bonafide prediction.

Nevertheless, Biden might have to get Republican allies to get to herd immunity. KH-2 (talk) 03:05, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure it was Ken (or whichever one you are), sure it was.... 03:15, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Biden should try to get the support of Franklin Graham in order to get more white evangelicals to get vaccinated.


 * If Biden gets more white evangelical support for vaccination, it will make it easier for Republicans to support vaccines since this is one of their biggest voting blocks. KH-2 (talk) 03:18, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I hate our politics SO FUCKING MUCH. 18:38, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

An observation
So this is what I've been noticing a lot lately. Away from the screen, I can argue a point eloquently and strongly, but when posting I often find myself reduced to shallow observations and the like. Why do you think that is? It's been bugging me a lot. 17:12, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That's very interesting. I'm not really sure why, but it sounds like you are one of the few still out there that are not totally adapted to using telecomms to communicate with people and can express themselves more clearly in person than virtually, so if I were you, I'd count my blessings. I wish I was more articulate with actual people. Princess Mononoke radio contact 18:15, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I mean... I dunno if it's a question of adaptation or not. I'm actually a Zoomer, so yeah. Maybe it has something to do with the dickwad theory? 21:42, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * When arguing in person, ethos and pathos are important, which is to say effective (you say you can argue eloquently and strongly, not soundly). In text-based formats, logos is typically more important, or at least harder to overlook. If your logos isn't up to par, but you've been relying on ethos and pathos to get by, you'd have trouble moving to situations where you can't make use of them effectively. It's important to keep in mind the difference between "winning" an argument and being correct. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 20:31, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, I'm finally done with school for the year
I have to go back for a 5th year though because I was supposed to be in a program that COVID ruined. Anyways, I'm back 01:18, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Stick with it, but know COVID exposed shit that's wrong with us, but didn't cause it. It's only a parasite, we're the ones with free will (and bodies susceptible to wild infections and cancer). Artificius (talk) 02:16, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Congrats dude. Stay strong. 02:31, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * All I have left for the year is the Biology exam, then I'm golden. Also, mind which door you open on the way out. I may have planted a pipebomb or two in the closet where they keep the temporal vortex. Haha! 17:58, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Bias warnings?
Should I add something on my page that lists potential biases that could interfere with my objectivity in editing certain sections of this wiki? CorpMinicrits (talk) 21:04, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You can if you like, but it’s not required, I don’t think anyone else does. This isn’t Wikipedia. Christopher (talk) 21:07, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure. As a Christian Anarchist, I don't think that I would be the best objective editor for topics involving Christianity and Anarchism. Would a bias result in my termination from the site? CorpMinicrits (talk) 21:10, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it won’t. If you’re worried about upsetting people, just discuss any substantive changes you make to Christianity/anarchism related articles on the talkpage first. Christopher (talk) 21:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No opinion is objective. I've made my biases clear. What matters more is a good argument, evidence, and intellectual honesty. It's actually really good to identify your biases since it gives you some humility when approaching a subject, and a lot of people just pretend otherwise because it's a kind of vulnerability. You're not going to be blocked for just being biased or wrong. 21:39, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If you can add a reliable (e.g., objective, neutral, verifiable, or scientific) citation for whatever you write in mainspace, it improves the chances that what you write will not eventually be removed. Opinions (with or without citations) are welcome on talk pages as long as they are not potentially libelous. Bongolian (talk) 03:25, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Calling on history buffs who might be here
Draft:Albania

Need a little help as sources on Albania's ancient history and even during the time of the Roman Empire are very slim. --Канал 48 (talk) 23:10, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Though I admit it's a fair bit to the west of my usual interests I can contribute a little trivia here and there.-Flandres (talk) 23:27, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * They have their own branch of the Indo-European language family, might be some content there. Artificius (talk) 00:40, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * how much of their ancient history is of relevance to an article here? its not something that we've bothered to much about for other countries we have articles on, and where we have, its not really clear to me why we have (looking at you france). a brief summary of it history for context sure, but id imagine the meat would be concerning hoxha and beyond. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:03, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Go here. 12:11, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * As for ancient history in the Balkans, it is the main meat of nationalist arguments. Example: The Bulgarian ethnic group is a mix of Slav, Turk and Thracian. When Bulgarians try to celebrate their heritage the Greek nationalists start screaming that they are Slavs and cannot claim their own history. As for Albania, the common consensus among archeologists is that Albanians are related to Illyrians but again with Greek nationalists, they claim that Albanians are not related to them. Ancient history is a major driver of nationalist arguments. --Канал 48 (talk) 16:14, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. Such nationalist arguments are often based on the idea that "races" are real things as well.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 13:37, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Outlandish scenario
Time for another outlandish scenario. You have a chance to genetically modify humans. You can dial to an absolute 10 which means people don't do pointlessly cruel things to one another and mostly help out one another but they lose most of their emotions and creativity. 1 would be a slight lowering of human ugliness and a slight dampening of human emotions (joy, ecstasy, rage) and creativity. I would prefer we don't be pedantic or comment on how outlandish or impractical this is. I have no idea how this could possibly be feasible or implemented and if this scenario seems stupid to you...you don't have to comment or participate. I'm simply curious how people would, if they had the choice to make this decision for everyone...they would feel comfortable to do this and how far on the scale of 1 to 10 they would go. Shabi DOO  19:40, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Zero. For the preservation of our blue and pure world!-Flandres (talk) 20:04, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You’d need to go to 10 to prevent worldwide riots when people find out they’ve had their emotions removed against their will, I don’t think even that would prevent mass suicide from already depressed people who now know they’ll never experience joy again. No war currently ongoing would ever end, as people would insist that all calls for peace are just the modification talking. If you stay a bit closer to reality and imagine this only effects zygotes as genetic modification does, the reaction of parents would probably be even worse (if only because they’ve still got their emotions). If people found out it was you, you’d be executed or imprisoned. Zero. Christopher (talk) 20:33, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Also this. For those who don't get it, my first answer was a reference to the slogan of a villain group called Blue Cosmos (from a favorite show of mine) which targets genetically modified people for extermination.
 * On a more serious note, you had better do this to everyone if you are going to do it. Given the history of human prejudice, even if you limit yourself to willing subjects, so long as you leave some "normals" behind I can guarantee you a group like Blue Cosmos would form.-Flandres (talk) 20:46, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Very good points so far. Shabi  DOO  21:30, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I’d prefer to snap my fingers, eliminating half of humanity instantly in a puff of dust. 22:32, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Not familiar with Blue Cosmos, but human willingness to help their neighbors is mediated by specific emotional subroutines, which is also why it works better if the humans receiving help share languages, folkways, and appearances with the ones giving it. Since human emotions appear to be strongly modular, and at least as far as we know are local in specific and discrete brain areas, it should be possible to target some while leaving the others mostly unaffected.  I would entirely remove sexual jealousy; it caused most of the random violent crime around here before opioids hit rural America. I would dial way back the purity/pollution and disgust module, which probably shouldn't be entirely eliminated because it protects us from disease.  If it could be targeted specifically I would prevent this module from targeting other people as disgusting pollutants.  Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 20:24, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Translations
I'm currently making some translations of RW pages, so I might not be active. When I mean translations, I mean hoping Reverso works. — <font color="Red">Jeh2ow <font color="Blue">Damn son!  14:34, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Just curious, which languages? We have native or fluent speakers of a number of languages here, but some languages I don't speak (Russian, Japanese, and Mandarin, I am looking at you) seem to get especially mangled in translation machinery. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 18:48, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Missionality, essays, and linking to essays
I plan to write some weird essays. Or essays about weird things. Or possibly both at the same time. But some I think may end up good by RW standards, except being about things that are not very important, and also being rooted in the views and thinking of mainly one editor.

But I'm not really sure where the line should go. The new page, Essay:Political Ponerology, describes a fringe book which could possibly be worth covering in a mainspace article, I don't know. But the essay will be quote-heavy and the emphasis may reflect my personal bias.

Some other things I expect will definitely belong in essayspace, or even funspace. I plan to eventually write about the correspondences between some channeled New Age teachings and video game sci-fi, or a narrow selection. On a New Age forum, there's actually discussion showing that elements of the Cassiopaean story of the solar system with a secret fleet of alien conquerors line up well with the earlier 1989 Sega game Phantasy Star II. Different elements, what is now a conspirituality trope of evil aliens no longer being extraterrestrial but instead working from a bad future of Earth, and a battle between timelines for which future will be reached, instead has its match in the 1994 Sega game Ecco: The Tides of Time.

There's a variety of peculiar things which I think may be worth having somewhere on this wiki, but in most cases they wouldn't make for good mainspace articles. But if I write more essays, I would like to link to some essay offshoots or tangents from mainspace articles on related topics. What's the policy on that when it goes beyond the occasional "See also" link? --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 22:56, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Linking to them in the "See also" section should be fine. Just don't link to them anywhere else in any articles. Spud (talk) 00:11, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 13:34, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That's what I first thought would make sense given what I've seen in other articles. Though I think it's ugly to mix "Essay:" links and mainspace links in the same list, so I propose adding a sub-heading under "See also" for linking to essays when they are added, e.g. "Related essays".
 * Also, I thought about another possible role of essays, in fewer cases. If an essay turns into a good source of some kind of info (to be evaluated in the same way that external sources are evaluated), maybe it could be stuck in a reference much like an external link. Not currently relevant, but let's say I later compile extra information including quotes from a channeled source in an essay? (I think such essays could potentially make sense for absurdly humorous crank material in general, when wishing to keep mainspace articles more concise.) --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 14:31, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Not mixing links to essays and articles is good. But I don't think essays would need their own sub-section within "See also". Just put all links to essays at the end of the section.


 * As for using essays as references, no. Definitely not. Using one RationalWiki article as a reference for another RationalWiki article is not acceptable. Using a RationalWiki essay as a reference in a RationalWiki article is even less acceptable. You could, however, link to essays in an article's notes. In fact, any remaining internal links in references should almost certainly be in notes instead. Spud (talk) 23:41, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I've seen one essay linked at the top of "See also" in some articles, and it's not too bad in appearance if the link text is changed from the default, and I suppose it makes sense to simply group such links at the bottom instead if they become more.


 * On notes and references, that clarifies things, in two ways. Not only that an internal link as a reference is unacceptable, but also that linking an essay in a note actually can be fine (making for two ways essays may be referred to in mainspace, "See also" and "Notes"). --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 00:54, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. I was originally going to say, "Don't link to essays in the main text." But I decided to write "anywhere else" for clarity's sake. Notes and "See also" are not part of the main text and I think links to essays there are fine. Spud (talk) 01:03, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

What is China doing?
I have a question - how did they get their cases down to single digits? I mean, even the tightest lockdown can't stop a few cases getting in, and in the first place stamping out the virus from a huge place like that is practically impossible, even with harsh lockdowns. At the same time, I don't buy the conspiracy theories that they have some magic cure. So what exactly is going on there? Meow Purr 14:33, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * They're likely fudging their numbers. 14:36, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * They welded people into their homes to prevent them from leaving. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 14:38, 13 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Just taking the numbers that China puts out, since April 2020 they have had 8,000 cases and 4 deaths. That is unpossible. 106.240.110.188 (talk) 08:17, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sure an authoritarian state with full control of the internet, media, and all forms of transport can perform a large enough shutdown. There is much less dissent in mainland China could limit Covid-19 transmission in some capacity. I do think they are lying about their numbers, although I'm not sure why, it's very possible they've handled the pandemic better than the United States. CorpMinicrits (talk) 14:53, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Complete command of the economy and a police state help keep real numbers down. But us previous users noted, they are likely manipulating public data. The massive failures from Europe and the United States as contrast presents a powerful propaganda win. Additionally, they will likely endure a longer period of viral transmission because they are exporting something north of 80% of domestically produced vaccine to other countries. At their current rate of vaccination, they won't scratch 70% inoculation till the end of 2023. But the purpose is propaganda. They will lock down any city, or region with maximum force and lie about it to the world. Only need to look as far as Xinjiang to see that.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 15:57, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't trust the PRC by any means. It is possible that their situation could be far worse than they are letting on. No sane person should trust the PRC at all. --Канал 48 (talk) 16:35, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems that N Korea has zero cases. I find this completely believable. They had no cases of aids a while ago.  It's in line with there are no homosexuals in Iran. Why are people so cynical about announcements by authoritarian governments? Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:45, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That's cause covid is illegal in North Korea. Dutchbag (talk) 21:46, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Whether or not China's reporting is accurate, it's almost a certainty they've handled the pandemic better than the United States. 124.148.115.22 (talk) 01:17, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You mean, given that China is a totalitarian state and can permanently detain citizens for being uncooperative, that's better public health management? As far as North Korea goes, Bob, people want to get out of that institutional catastrophe, nobody wants to go there. That's the thing about contagious diseases. If it didn't start there, how would it get there?Ariel31459 (talk) 02:19, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I know that irony doesn't work well on the internet. But did you seriously think my post was somehow in support of NK?  Wait! I misunderstood you comment.  You are suggesting that there really is no Covid in NK because they really have had zero visitors since the pandemic began? I think it's somewhat more likely that they are just lying about the numbers.(Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 13:06, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Fucking hell! How did Ariel not get your sarcasm? And yeah, I really think it's more likely NK are lying about their numbers Ariel; ffs did you forget the mission statement.— Leucippus Talk 22:19, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Sadly, that is still better than what Trump did, and he was in charge for most of the Pandemic. Way to start "Cold War II" on a high note...-Flandres (talk) 02:22, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't trust their data, but they don't count sympton-free cases too, which greatly relieves the number of cases. GeeJayK (talk) 02:25, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * My point was really about China. Untrustworthy. Poor losers. Anyone can give the CCP a benefit of doubt if they find it comforting. Ariel31459 (talk) 02:47, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * While I do not trust the Chinese government in general, I do find their COVID numbers somewhat believable considering the extreme measures they are taking. The Chinese government is also using the pandemic as an excuse to invade the privacy and control the movement of their citizens, unfortunately. Even though the original lockdowns have been lifted, there's a "health code" program in place, in which people are allowed to go out if they have a "green code". People travelling without a "green code" could be taken by the government to a place of quarantine. Everyone is required to report all places they've visited, which is cross-confirmed with the cellphone carriers, and anyone who's been to a block where a case was recently confirmed will not be cleared to leave their residence until they've stayed home for a certain number of days and got a negative test. If a city reports more than a certain number of cases, universal testing is required in the city and all residents must get a negative result before getting the "green code"(if too many cases occur in a city, I believe they will impose a lockdown). For confirmed cases, the government will publish all movement within a number of days of newly confirmed patients each day and quarantine close contacts of the patient. In addition, anyone travelling to China is sent directly to a place of quarantine for 14 days after clearing immigration, even though they've been required to show a negative COVID test before travelling. After the 14-day quarantine, most local governments still require them to report their body temperatures and perform multiple COVID tests on them for the next 7 days. Many people receive 5-6 mandatory tests within 3 weeks after arriving in China. Even vaccinated individuals are subject to the same quarantine and testing requirements if they travel internationally. Foreigners will be allowed to enter only if they either reside in China (for work or study) or have been fully vaccinated. Asymptomatic cases are not reported as confirmed but are still subject to the same quarantine requirements as confirmed patients. Local officials get punished if local transmission happens in the area, so the local government takes the virus extremely seriously. With such extreme measures in place, the low numbers do seem achievable (I think there are a few countries that adopted similar measures and got new cases under control quickly), but it also means the government has gained much more power on what a person does without people complaining (since they're more afraid of the virus). Sbcuser (talk) 03:34, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

The growing threat of right wing terrorism
Considering the attempted terrorist attack against the Michigan state government and the Capitol Riot, we are clearly facing the growing threat of right wing terrorism. Sadly the right wing terrorists here in the US are the same ones who scream about Islamic Extremists (which obviously exist but are not the main threat). --Канал 48 (talk) 16:19, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The threat was much bigger during the migrant crisis 2015-2019 (Charleston church, Christchurch mosque, El Paso, Pittsburgh synagogue) Kevs  Ping!  19:30, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Doesn't mean it isn't a threat now. Just look at the Raid of the Capitol (Siege of the Epiphany). Hell, less than two months ago my countries' central intelligence service reported that the "Far-right terror threat is increasing [over here]." . It's not over. 19:45, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Question: What do you mean by terrorism (or riot, raid, or siege) such that the events of the 6th qualify? 192․168․1․42 (talk) 20:37, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The United Nations definition of terrorism is the following:

Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them. (https://dema.az.gov/sites/default/files/Publications/AR-Terrorism%20Definitions-BORUNDA.pdf#:~:text=A%20UN%20panel%2C%20on%20March%2017%2C%202005%2C%20described,or%20abstain%20from%20doing%20any%20act.%E2%80%9D%20European%20Union)

The rioters were using fanatical violence to disrupt government function to achieve a political goal. What they did was an act of terrorism and should be treated as such. --Канал 48 (talk) 22:08, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If there's good news, my gut feeling is the cumulative events that happened in the Donald Trump era (including the three 8chan terrorism attacks and the Capitol shitshow) have focused more law attention on it at the moment. Right wing domestic violence (particularly violence fueled by racism) has always kind of lurked in the background in United States for a long time, but the "natural bias" seems to mean that the typical person who doesn't pay much attention to the news, isn't as into politics, etc. tends to forget or downplay the domestic terrorist threat potential. Until something big happens, and legal attention is focused on the shitheads who perpetuated it. Happened after Timothy McVeigh from what I remember, and one of the net side effects was that the then-growing militia movement he was associated with kind of temporarily whimpered away shortly thereafter. Likewise, I wonder now if those that participated in some of this recent shit more for goofball meme and chan troll culture and whatnot have had second thoughts. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 03:06, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying the threat no longer exists, I'm only saying it's less than during the migrant crisis. Kevs  Ping!  06:20, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hard disagree. Right-Wing in the West violence tends to become more prevalent when there a perceived threats to white people's position in society. The migrant crisis certainly presented that, however the growing main streaming of BLM and Black liberation movements presents a level of violence I think we haven't seen since the years before the Civil Rights movement in the 60's.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 22:04, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, there were counterprotesters to BLM, but they were mostly peaceful. Kevs  Ping!  09:59, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Character development
For the novel that I am attempting to write I have a main character named Liang Tsitak. He is going to be a high school student at a military academy. Liang's character is highly intelligent, skilled at using firearms and is physically fit. Now he has mild Autism. Liang can understand the (fictional) Greconese language but he cannot speak or write it; he can only speak English and Bulgarian.

Because of the fact that my main character has Autism, he gets brutally mocked. Ableism is a very common phenomenon in my post-apocalyptic world and is encouraged by the government. The character Liang gets to the point where he nearly guns down people at his school but changes his mind.

Any good ideas for developing my character? --Канал 48 (talk) 23:57, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe he has some phobias? A friend who went missing during the apocalypse whose memory still lingers in his mind? Or he's an avid firearm collector? (I guess one would have to be, in the wake of a zombie apocalypse.) The character sounds intriguing. 01:08, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Presumably, that should be "can understand a little of the Greconese language". Maybe can say a few words ("yes", "no", "thank you"). I know from my own real life experience that being able to understand much more of a language than you can confidently say is a real thing. And I also know from my own personal experience that it's possible to get by on a basic level in a language that you can't read or write. But having a thorough understanding of a spoken language without being able to speak a single word of it yourself? I don't think so. Spud (talk) 14:30, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I can work that in. Not very far into the story. As for my character's interest, he has a near obsessive interest in music i.e violin. --Канал 48 (talk) 16:07, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I myself am partial to the cello. Ohhh, the sweet, reverberate sound... 19:47, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Being an electric bassist, I would love to try playing an octobass sometime. That thing looks amazing! The Blade of the Northern Lights (<font face="MS Mincho" color="black">話して下さい ) 22:24, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Got the Vaccine
Wish me luck. — <font color="Red">Jeh2ow <font color="Blue">Damn son!  21:07, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The vaccine turned me into a zombie. Welcome to the ranks of the undead. --Канал 48 (talk) 22:01, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I've only got one shot so far, but am getting excellent 2.5G reception. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 23:59, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you sure it's 2.5G? Because when I got my first dose, I got better 2.4G reception. 00:22, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Roe v Wade; Slow torture, Quick Death
I'm going to say something I'm sure will fire people up but I want to make it clear first: I support abortion rights, for a multitude of reasons, but primarily because of the massive gender discrepancies. But I would favor SCOTUS killing it for two reasons: I understand it would not be a clean, or bloodless process. However more and more America reveals itself to be less of shinning beacon on the hill and more like a tapped together flashlight. Drastic change is necessary to accomplish progressive goals.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 22:58, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) It eliminates a conservative cudgel, that has been used with ruthless efficiency.
 * 2) It would force corporations to basically lobby states to legalize abortion or move their operations out of the state.
 * Why do you think corporations care enough to "force" states to legalize abortion? Also, the most anti-abortion states are also have the cheapest labor force and are thus immensenly profitable because it reduces cost overhead by throwing the poor under the bus to make line go up. Tuxer (talk) 23:49, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll be honest, I have a feeling that the de-federalized approach would have been the better one to take all along. Kind of like with alcohol post-Prohibition -- the data between places that actually still have dry or semi-dry counties and predicted places where abortion be outlawed or severely curtailed kind of shows some similarities. Let those engaged in religious "moralizing" and "piousness" do what they want, it'll be a great indicator of where not to move to. At any rate, now that abortion now comes in pill form, I feel that any attempts to outlaw it possibly will end up looking more like a War On Some Drugs situation.
 * Tuxer: To be honest, the "trend" if anything is opposite. More and more, business relies on machines, not people. That cheap labor force you talk about (with the low skills of the shitty education typical in the Bible Belt states) is being replaced by robots and computers. It's not surprising that so many of these anti-abortion states in the NYT article are at the bottom of the GDP per capita list (not all, but the 7 worst ones are)... the machines and the better educated workers and whatnot are, frankly, more productive. I'm sure some GOP folks stuck in antebellum thinking do have your opinion, and they are wrong. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 00:22, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Saying that having the cheapest labor force makes a state more profitable for companies is something that doesn't make sense to be quite honest. There's a reason why companies go to Ireland and not to Bosnia in Europe. Economic stability,, ease of doing business the size of the market, education, legal certainty... These and many other factors are far more important. GeeJayK (talk) 00:33, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There are some companies / products, granted, where cost of the labor force matters as it's still an industry where they throw bodies at problems. Trouble here is, there are plenty of places with cheaper labor forces way cheaper than Alabama or Arkansas. Per quick Googling ballpark estimates, factory workers in Alabama earn $10-15 per hour. In the Ukraine, the wage seems to be around 45 hryvnia an hour ($1.64). Vietnam, about 20000 to 25000 dong an hour ($0.87-$1.09) seems common. Even a place like the Czech Republic, which is more middle income, is a little cheaper than Alabama (seems to be 150-200 CZK, or $7.22-$9.62). If you just need bodies and don't care about other factors, there are other places to go. And yeah, a lot of times, a *lot* of other factors are in play. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 01:38, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I might be wrong, but I don't think that's what Tuxer meant. He said that these companies go to poorer states and make "immense profit. Of course, some of them go to these states and take into account the wages, but that's not the most important point. Having lower wages usually means that your population is, on average, less educated, and, as a result less productive. Of course, some companies change their capital because of the wages, but that's not enough to make "immense profit", at least not if you don't count many other factors. Why did companies only start to go to Asia more recently? It's because that the regimes there only became more stable and started to respect property rights over tha last few decades, along with the fact that their education started to get better. GeeJayK (talk) 01:57, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * All of this is true, the above low cost country deal really apply more to low-margin items (eg the garment industry) which, frankly, aren't top dog in profits these days. Currently, the industries making "immense profit" in the US are dominated by computers / electronics / Internet, finance, and health care. None of these are really big "throw bodies to make stuff" type sectors, these sectors require a highly educated workforce for many of their areas. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 02:41, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Why would companies care?
So I'll address this. Most of them won't, at least not in the same way that you or I might care. Companies do care about their images though. They care a lot about those. It's also important to note that the rich are as human as the rest of us, and not above petty feuds, pet peeves, or personal ideals. This is without going into the trends in labor preferences that highlighted. However, I wanted to briefly touch on why companies would push for something. I'd also like to point out that there would also be companies who'd push against it, to varying degrees of success. Thus relying primarily or exclusively upon the whims of the private sector might not be a good idea. Again, I'm touching on the topic, not attacking anyone. 01:54, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

A graphic for my upcoming YouTube video


I am making a sequel to a Vampire EAS video (which took place in Romania). In my sequel the vampires take over Romania and spread their influence to neighboring countries. --Канал 48 (talk) 01:43, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That sounds badass. So it's like a vampire plague, right? As opposed to a Stephanie Meyer-esque ZOMG hawt vampire profile? Maybe it's a little late, but I always imagined a vampire outbreak with the vampires being more bloodthirsty troglodytes than human. 02:27, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Liberty and Security
With the events of the Capitol Riots of 2021, as well as the general rioting, mass shootings, and terror attacks that have occurred in this nation over the past few years, I come to the following discussion point. What matters more, civil liberties or national security? CorpMinicrits (talk) 14:54, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Need these be mutually exclusive? 15:07, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * In some areas. Are there ideologies that shouldn't be protected under the First Amendment? Thoughts that shouldn't be permitted in a just society? Think of the Tolerance Paradox. CorpMinicrits (talk) 15:25, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Is that really trading civil liberties for "security" though? Something like the tolerence paradox isn't so much infringing on civil liberties in any realistic sense so much as establishing a set of formal boundaries to political and social discourse. Further, the concept of "security" is itself quite flimsy, with some actions having tangible effects in combating the threat du jor and others either being unproductive or even counterproductive. In other words, I reject your binary dichotomy as a false one due to it oversimplifying the matter. 15:33, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * understood. Thank you for your participation. Signed, CorpMinicrits (talk) 15:56, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Wow! I get to quote  Benjamin Franklin to an audience which includes many Americans: "Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:47, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It would certainly help if the government cared about either of those things. They care about the perception of civil liberties and national security. By failing to address systemic threats to civil liberties, it threatens national security.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 16:50, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It's also an often misused quote. It's for things like "Government wants to shut down the press because of the War".  Knowing the your country's troop deployments is not an essential liberty, but being able to ask why the war is being fought most definitely is.  04:33, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

The only COVID conspiracy that is logistically possible and works within the Laws of Physics
Note: I do NOT buy into any conspiracies

That COVID is a biological weapon. Biological weapons have been made and can bring the world to a halt. That is literally the only conspiracy that is feasible. All the others make zero sense and do not work within the Laws of Physics. --Канал 48 (talk) 01:25, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It is clearly the 2nd part of the binary weapon system that chemtrails was the 1st part of....... Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 02:51, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * While it's technically plausible, it's not a particularly wise weapon because of the high probability of blowback. Bongolian (talk) 07:40, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Earlier, I was thinking about the bioweapon theory. Suppose that secret bioweapon projects around the world try to develop killer viruses that are useful for military purposes. (I think that's done, there's all kinds of scary military projects that make military sense.) This coronavirus does not, however, match sensible criteria of a "useful" virus, because it spreads way too easily and harms way too little. The earlier SARS seems like a closer fit in that regard, but still rough for a weapon. But then, the bioweapon theory tends to go along with the "accidentally leaked out of a lab" theory, and that removes the criteria of weaponized usefulness of a virus. Instead, anything that spreads very easily is plausible with such a theory, as some "experiment" could have arrived at such a virus. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 14:14, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Why are the "laws of physics" important? Shouldn't it be the "laws of biology" in this case?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 09:29, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree with ApooftGnegiol. If I were in control, I would have bioengineered something closer to the Black Plague. Kauri0.o (talk) 04:15, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Contemporary usage of the Gadsden flag is painful
Every time I seen some bootlicking, stop-the-steal, trumpian flying the Gadsden I cringe. It literally states what it represents right there on it and they still misuse it. I get the feeling that these are the same type of hyper un-self aware people who watch Fight Club or A Clockwork Orange and take them as inspiration to commit random acts of violence. Comrade General Pootis (talk) 14:50, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * As painful as that is, to me it's not as bad as the cognitive dissonance you have to have to fly the American flag and the Battle Flag of the Army of North Virginia Confederate flag simultaneously. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 15:12, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

This should be helpful for any Republicans


Considering how stupid most Republicans are, this should be a helpful guide. --Канал 48 (talk) 23:58, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * BUT OH NO, look at those scary-looking yellow people!!!!one11!!!!3.145388O1111!!!!one11!!!! 01:01, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Why bother?
http://www.anus.com/zine/articles/prozak/nihilism/

An interesting take on Nihilism, and shares a lot of how I feel when I look at the world. I often find myself asking what’s the point and why do I strive so much in what can be said to be an “imaginary” world. As a kid I remember thinking about this world we created. All these things that we pretend exist but are just things in our heads. Why run around about careers, love, jobs, etc. We don’t have to do this and yet we make it out to be so utterly important and vital to life. Is life really just finding a way to fill the day with something we pretend is important so we don’t get bored so so we don’t get scared when comparing ourselves to the cosmos. I can’t help but find that arguments against nihilism fail in the ultimate sense because it’s asking me to essentially lie to myself and deny reality. The error that site makes in their article is to try and salvage some sort of meaning. Machina (talk) 01:10, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * One of the few things the article mentions that makes sense (a fair bit of it is meandering blah) is that we should define nihilism when we use it. You should really do the same Machina. I don't know what you are referring to when you use the term nihilism. If you are referring to the existential philosophical term: that meaning and values don't exist a posteriori...then yes I am with you and perhaps most people here are. We cannot point to anywhere in the universe that confirms meaning or validates our values. Subjective human constructs. No deity who wrote it all down on a tablet. Not that controversial in the secular humanist West. But I get the idea you are referring to a more "everything is shit...what's the fucking point"? attitude...which isn't actually nihilism. That is a reaction to nihilism. And most reasonable criticism of this kind of reaction comes far more from psychology than philosophy. Not all, but I fear most cases of people reacting to the revelation of nihilism in such a way suffer from terrible life experiences and/or depression. The overwhelming majority of philosopher's reaction to nihilism is to work to create our own meaning, a minority take a more aggressive and forceful approach of imposing one's meaning on the world, a few throw in a mixed bag of ideologies or radical responses. Being defeatist is of course one possible reaction (as no reaction is "wrong" or "right" in a world where values are subjective human constructs). But most people don't want to sit by and watch someone go down that road if there is a chance that they can help the person, even if it means pointing them in the direction of resources which might be valuable.
 * What makes it complicated is you also seem to mix up nihilism with the "brain in a vat" style scepticism (ex. we are just a simulation). And honestly that has nothing to do with nihilism. If you really push it I suppose you can say they ever so slightly over lap if you try to explain reality, but in all honestly that would just be imposing one human construct onto another. In any case, this is a separate problem and when you talk about this you'd be better off referring to extreme scepticism rather than nihilism. Someone obsessing over this is also a possible sign of mental stress or perhaps worse. Again, I don't think philosophical exploration will provide much help, but psychological resources might. Shabi  DOO  01:53, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The overwhelming reaction to nihilism is to ignore it based on everything I have read on it. Making meaning is not dealing with Nihilism so much as it is kicking the can down the road. Psychology doesn't help because they all insist it's depression when it isn't. It's something I thought about as a kid, that we humans run around in this world we made and playing pretend. Why though? I'm tired of the stock answers that it's all worth it, but they never say why. You're supposed to agree with them and anything you say that challenges that gets you sent to the hospital for fear of suicide. The philosophers of the past got close to dealing with nihilism but back out into making meaning, never truly reckoning with the void. Making meaning is like telling kids Santa exists, it's just a comforting lie to tell ourselves and if we tell it long enough we believe it. But sooner or later that bubble bursts and that's when the actual work starts. Psychology is useless against is often defaulted too because people end up too scared to think about it. So yes...I ask myself every day why I bother with all this if I don't have to. What's the point? Pleasure? That gets old real quick and empty.Machina (talk) 06:23, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * A person showing multiple signs of quite possible depression...denying that depression is a possibility. Perhaps admitting that you just might actually be depressed would help (even if it turns out that you are not). Shabi  DOO  14:25, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * A question, if you'd be so kind. Do you actually care what the responses to your posts are? Because it seems to me that you're just using replies to bang your drum as it were. 13:58, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * (EC) Well, what do you want when you talk about meaning? Throughout history, many have held that there can be no meaning in life without a supernatural God to hand down meaning to people.  If you accept that, and reject the existence of God, then you will be forced into nihilism.  Perhaps you think that life cannot be meaningful without there being some objective, naturalistic value.  Then the question is whether there is any such objective value.  As it happens, moral realism is still very much alive (and indeed, subjectivism is not as prominent now as it was in the early 20th century), but maybe you think there are no objective values, and so there can be no meaning in life.  One question you might consider, though, is why you would think that objective values are necessary in the first place?  Surely, this belief reflects a positive valuation of objectivity.  If this value is objective, then there is at least one objective value: objectivity.  If not, then it is purely subjective, and I can fairly ask why you should remain committed to a subjective value, when you hold that only objective values are meaningful.  The subjective account holds that it doesn't really matter whether there are objective values or not; life is meaningful provided you have some end that you are genuinely interested in, and are actively pursuing.  The extreme case is to say that what is really valuable is the ability to impose your own values on the world, to create meaning in an absurd world.  One thing worth considering is whether you actually belief that life has no meaning.  If that is the case, then if I cure cancer, or discover a source of clean, cheap energy, my life will be no more meaningful than that of my twin brother who spends his entire life sitting in a field eating grass.  If I perform charitable work and succeed in easing the suffering of thousands of people, it would be no different than if I devoted my time to seeking out and consuming every flavor of potato chip.  The subjective account allows that there may be no objective, aperspectival value out in the world to which we can appeal to say that the one of these is any better than the other, but this is insignificant insofar as in fact, nobody who lived the latter life could realistically look back on their life and find it as meaningful as that of the person who lived the former.  If value is a social construct, you are still very much caught up in the construct, and would be hard pressed to escape it.  If you spent your life doing nothing, you probably wouldn't be able to really enjoy it, because certain values have been imposed on you one way or another, and now play a role in defining your life.  Again, you cannot consistently complain about this account's lack of objectivity without endorsing objectivity as valuable, thereby either appealing to a subjective value, or claiming that there is at least one objective value (namely, objectivity). <font color="#00abcb">𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒   talk  14:13, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * But I have escaped it in some respect. Everything seems about the same and anything else, nothing. As the article says it's all artificial and fake. Even our claims to truth are subjective in that they require context otherwise they make no sense or a prior building block to even "get it". Hence why they say nothing can be communicated or understood.Machina (talk) 20:08, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

"Why bother" with what? You are obviously bothering. That's good. Keep at it. You'll improve with age.
 * We all bother. Bothering with family, pets, hobbies, public activities, and so forth. If you study nihilism you will find that very few serious philosophers accept it as a sound point of view. If nothing is true, then neither is nihilism. So, you see, nihilism is an unsound metanarrative.Ariel31459 (talk) 22:31, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

The base premise here is stupid
Why exactly do we need some objective meaning to life? What exactly do we lose without it? 14:52, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I know you weren't asking me but I was thinking something similar.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:10, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Personally, I can only think "Ve believe in nossing, Lebowski". 主要行事月 (talk) 16:21, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Some people are deeply saddened by the notion that they posses no cosmic significance. Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 01:10, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * IT's nothing to do with no cosmic significance but with no direction to life. There isn't really anything to live for, nothing we can point to as the reason for being. Without objective meaning we lose a lot, conflicts arise because we don't have anything solid to unite behind beyond someone's say so. The link above (and the site has several other proofs) show that all that we hold dear isn't really real but just phantoms in our heads we project on reality. Today you see a crisis of people not knowing what to live for or how to find meaning because the old methods of religion and mysticism are failing and the current methods, for lack of a better word, suck. So yeah, we lose a lot.Machina (talk) 01:52, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * And why is self constructed meaning and/or direction not good enough? Why must it be external and immutable? 04:01, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * What does it matter if there is or is not a "meaning of the universe". or big picture or whatever? Find meaning in your daily life. work to make the small bit of the world you live in more like you'd like it to be. You'll find a lot about the world, and about yourself, by wrestling with the parts of life you dislike and trying to make a difference. Reading online articles about whether the universe has a meaning, and then moping because it's not how you'd prefer it, doesn't help anybody. You've been here for four years asking philosophical questions, and seem no wiser and no happier. Instead, do something practical. Become an activist. Volunteer for a charity. Whatever you're after, it's not on the internet. Turn it off sometimes and do a bit of living. Please. Avida Dollarsher again 18:58, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I'll refer you to the article to show why self constructed meaning doesn't work. It shows why the whole "living" thing is just meaningless and avoiding the issue. That there is no meaning in doing either charity or murder. Nothing one does makes a difference at the end of the day after all, since it's all the same. I feel like no one bothers reading what has been posted. IF they did they wouldn't be making such comments. You cannot find meaning in life because there is no meaning in life, it's a lie you tell yourself. Reality is Nihilism, anything else is lying to yourself. Wrestling with life only taught me that much, that nothing matters at all and to lie to myself that it does just tricks me into believing that.Machina (talk) 23:41, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The article is vague and confused. We begin with the definition of nihilism as "the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated". Firstly, it is obvious that the claim that nothing can be communicated is false. A more careful claim, like "nothing can be communicated precisely" might be accurate, but is much less impressive.  So, can anything be known?  There are good arguments that the answer is yes.  For instance, I know what I am seeing right now.  Do I know, with arbitrary certainty, that there is an external world in which the things I am seeing exist, as I see them?  Maybe not, but inference to the best explanation is generally regarded as an acceptable form of argument.  Nothing explains my sensory experiences of an external world better than the existence of an external world.  In the article, the definition of nihilism is immediately followed by a paragraph about symbols, which are described as using a part of the whole to represent the whole.  This is ostensibly not how symbols work; they can work this way, but the word "cat", which symbolizes the animal /cat/, bears no resemblance to any actual cat.  It is nonsense to describe the word "cat" as "part of the whole," the whole being an actual cat or the set of all actual cats.  In any case, the argument appears to be something like this:
 * P1: The mind represents things with symbols.
 * P2: The mind's symbolic representations of things are imperfect.
 * P3: If a symbol imperfectly represents its object, then it does nothing to describe that object.
 * C1: The mind's representations of things do not describe those things. (P2, P3)
 * P4: For there to be knowledge, the mind's representations of things must describe those things.
 * C2: There can be no knowledge. (P4, C1) (Note: turns out I didn't even need P1, but I'm not going through changing all the numbers now)
 * This argument falls to the point that imperfect representations can still be indicative, combined with the additional point that some imperfect representations are better than others (e.g. the Earth is more spherical than it is flat, though it is neither flat nor a sphere). The next paragraph notes that, in the face of evidence, people may not understand it or may actively ignore it.  What this has to do with nihilism is not clear, since we are ostensibly taking nihilism according to the given definition, and not the hipster definition. That people can be ignorant and wrong is hardly significant, unless the claim is supposed to be:
 * P1: People are wrong about some things.
 * P2: If people are wrong about some things, then knowledge is impossible.
 * C1: Knowledge is impossible. (P1, P2)
 * In which case I reject P2. The next paragraph claims that people "do not understand any idea more complex than one they have conceived, they view such ideas as wrong".  This is conditionally true, but not universally true.  Children, for instance, have effectively no ideas of any complexity, and yet come to accept many complex ideas by the time they reach adulthood.  Clearly, even if all children always take all new ideas as wrong intially, they do not hold this view indefinitely.
 * Finally, we get a new proposal for a definition of nihilism: that "meaning, values, memory and symbols are artifacts of judging, perceiving minds. Without humanity, the world just is". Note that, whereas the initial definition is given explicitly, this one has to be inferred from context.  From here, there is something of a suggestion that values are derived from human survival value, and the article turns to morality.  It is not clear what all this discussion of the meaning of symbols has gotten us to at this point, as the topic shifts completely over to value, which is a separate issue.  "Meaning" in the discussion takes on a motivated aspect, which is not present in the consideration of symbols.  Since the author rejects the initially proposed definition of nihilism, it is not clear what the point of including the discussion of symbols was.  Since going through the article like this is a bit exhausting, I'll respond more directly to some of your above claims.
 * there is no meaning in life, it's a lie you tell yourself
 * This is an unsatisfactory reply to the above commentary, because the argument appears to be as follows:
 * P1: There is no objective meaning in life.
 * P2: If there is no objective meaning in life, then the claim that there is objective meaning in life is a lie.
 * C1: The claim that there is objective meaning in life is a lie (P1, P2)
 * C2: The claim that there is subjective meaning in life is a lie (non sequitur)
 * If you are trying to claim that there can be no subjective meaning in life, you are going to run into issues very fast. Subjective values do not even need external justification to exist.
 * nothing matters at all and to lie to myself that it does just tricks me into believing that
 * This is a claim that must be contextualized. From the perspective of dead matter (e.g. a rock), it is true that nothing matters.  It does not matter to rocks, or to plants, or distant stars whether I live or die.  However, it does matter to me, and it will continue to matter to me until I die.  Likewise, I suspect it probably matters to you whether you live or die, and whether your life is pleasant or painful, etc.  It matters to the person on the street outside whether people act charitably.  The claim that there is no inherent, objective, God-given meaning does not imply that there is no meaning at all.  The article would apparently like to define this as nihilism, but that would be an unusual usage of the term.  The stance that the article seems to be advocating is something more like non-cognitivism, the view that moral claims do not refer to some feature of the world, and thus cannot be objectively true or false. On a related note, the idea that judgments are lies is self-defeating, because nihilism is itself a judgment about the nature of reality.
 * If you want a rock-solid argument against nihilism, broadly interpreted, you are going to find yourself disappointed. It's a bit like dogmatic skepticism: if you start from the assumption that all counterarguments are false, then you are never going to find a persuasive counterargument. <font color="#00abcb">𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒   talk  00:59, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * So words, having no inherent meaning, are worthless and without value? Congrats, you've just killed your own argument. 01:11, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * To facilitate engagement with your thinking, I recommend you try to put your argument in standard form (i.e. P1, P2, C1, C2, etc), to make it clearer what premises you are working from and what conclusions you are deriving therefrom. <font color="#00abcb">𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒  talk  02:32, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * What Serene said (extremely well by the way), your arguments would come across a lot stronger and easier to respond to if they were formed as premises + conclusion or a format just as useful.
 * Also...what GC said. Any engagement in extreme relativism or extreme scepticism is self-defeating, if these grand claims where true then the very claim itself is de-legitimised (i.e. if nothing can be demonstrated true, then the very claim nothing can be demonstrated true cannot be demonstrated true etc). Perhaps you should shave off just a little of the absolutism from your claims.   Shabi  DOO  14:24, 22 May 2021 (UTC)