RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive340

Socialist Sh*itpost
You can't call yourself a true leftist if you have any kind of custom signature on Rationalwiki; such things like colour, images, or anything else are bourgeois and capitalistic Comrade General Pootis (talk) 20:50, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Emojis are of the working people. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:13, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * All our literature and art are for the masses of the people, and in the first place for the workers, peasants and soldiers; they are created for the workers, peasants and soldiers and are for their use. Avida Dollarsher again 21:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * In addition, while emoji may be of the working people, superscripted text implies a higher rank in the hierarchy, or the existence of a hierarchy, and therefore isn't in keeping with Marxism, comrade. Representative Slip Represent yourself 21:37, 17 January 2020

Might not be bourgeois but they do make my eyes bleed AMassiveGay (talk) 22:37, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You're that person who'd read books without any pictures in them. SQUARE. 22:52, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No. As long as the code or materials for the signature are open source, you do not exploit your fellow users by making use of the sig for your own ends. 23:45, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Terms like leftist and rightist are useless, overgeneralizing and accomplish absolutely nothing. Even worse is when people ever talk about "the left" or "the right", most notably when it's "the problem with leftists" or "what I don't like about the right". We all become a little less intelligent when we use these terms. But yeah, you are right. My blue and pink signature clearly demonstrates that I am a neo-con libertarian who thinks that all Children in schools should read Atlas Shrugged as though it's the bible. What is the correct font and shade of black a true "leftist" should use? Shabi  DOO  23:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Shade of BLACK????!!?? That is the color of the fascist rightist counterrevolutionaries! A rice red-and-yellow signature will do quite nicely, thank you. 00:07, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Pffff. Rice-red-and-yellow is just the way post-truthian global monopolistic hegemony ideologists use for the real term for that colour which is: inclusive-sunset-arabesque. But a true pre-Marxist proletarian justice crusader would, in fact, be embarassed to use inclusive-sunset-arabesque as it is offensive to Giraffes. So it's best to just use the hex code which is #FD5E53. Only self-respecting people on the left-side of the political spectrum have signatures in that hex colour (color for Americans who fear the u in the word). Shabi  DOO  01:18, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry. "Rice" was supposed to be "nice". On the main point, giraffes are capitalist agents, as established by the fact they work for the exploitative capitalist institutions known as "zoos". 01:26, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Please inform someone who gives an intercourse. Aloysius the Gaul 01:42, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * How is this socialist? — Oxyaena Harass  03:33, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, from the color of your sig, you're apparently a pinko, Oxy. Kencolt (talk) 04:17, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yea verily. — Oxyaena Harass  08:08, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Eh. I'm not going to go for one side or the other in this thing.

There's no profit in it. Kencolt (talk) 23:44, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Exploitative kulak oppressor! 16:30, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

My all time favorite pseudoscience argument ever
"Science does not know everything"

Don't know why though? Guess that it is because that science does obviously not know everything but pseudoscience promoters act like it is a solid argument. It is not like scientists go around saying that they have all the answers about the universe and multiverse. Yet pseudoscience promoters act like they have all the answers with either little and or outdated information. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 02:44, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The trick of skepticism isn't knowing more than anyone else. It's always been when it's time to stop knowing something.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 04:49, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. Another thing to keep in mind is an idea that seems pseudo-scientific, because it first appears in a work of pure imagination, still may be possible. One of my favorite examples is the idea of transparent aluminum, (aluminum oxynitride), which was first described in Star Trek: The Journey Home.Ariel31459 (talk) 06:12, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Science doesn't know anything, because science is not a person - science is a method for people to gain knowledge, and to have some evidence that that knowledge is valid. Aloysius the Gaul 06:43, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm Having a Hard Time
Tonight the fire alarm went off, Fire department and police came, and I was the first one out, which made ne feel a little girly, but I did go back and hold the door check for smoke at every level until other doors sounded like they were unlocking, at which point I would scurry away because they are leaving and I don t know my neighbors. But because I am dedicated to being the last one out, I was in the halls looking for the fire before I wanted to get people out, hoping I wouldn't have to look one in the eye. You might not know what I mean when I say the fire alarms went off. Everyone got out, and I did a couple prat falls to keep people off the sidewalk because I don't know know how else to relay important information. I don't know how to talk to people. I feel a little something. I'm not the arbiter of the cosmic giggle. I did a lot of good but I'm feeling like that should mean something, Ram Dass would not have an answer. Gol Sarnitt (talk)
 * You're definitely not alone in that. The people who call me friends actively shun me with some frequency (it's gotten a lot worse this calendar year), and even on the occasions I try the standard shots of courage (though I was never a tequila person, always been more partial to gin) don't make me less insufferable. The best I can think is remembering The Heart is a Lonely Hunter; of the 6 main characters who have various friendships, only one learns a damn thing and the others are all destroyed. Even those who think they have some special ability to talk and get along are shooting in the dark. To get by I largely recombine quotes from people, especially Neil Peart but my favorite authors as well; it's often stiff, but at least sometimes I can spit something out. It fucking sucks and there's no way around it, and at least when I've tried to pretend otherwise it just makes me feel like more of an idiot for failing, so recognizing it and going with it is somewhat less agonizing. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい ) 06:06, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * There are methods for developing social and communication skills. It's a huge undertaking and challenging with varying levels of "success" but it is possible. Shabi  DOO  17:25, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, they definitely can help; with a sad smile I can say they got me to where I am now. Good enough to want to interact with people and have some conversational ability, so definitely better than I would have been otherwise, just not good enough to sustain it. (Not, mind you, that the people who call me friends are blameless; a true friend seems to be someone who always has somebody more important than you to spend time with, and gets enraged for you daring to want to do something together) I did speech therapy for many years, and it definitely had some impact. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい ) 18:05, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, evacuating immediately is generally what's best for everyone, as it clears hallways. If you have children or pets in your care, obviously you should aid them, but delaying to not be first just puts others at risk.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 05:24, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The sidewalks were completely iced over. I left that information out by accident. I'm ok with everybody going back to normal, which is definitely not talking to your neighbors.  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:37, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Climate doomers
Had the misfortune of being exposed to the hard green lot, which there are plenty of online. Somehow, they manage to bother even though a lot of their sources are from non-scientist cranks and they rely on a lot of fallacious arguments regarding human nature (e.g. ignoring the power balance that is imperialism, having a very idealized picture of animal nature). I'd ask for how to better argue against them, but they're so cultish and aggressive that it's likely not worth engaging them directly, so I guess it's for peace of mind more than anything. The worst aspect of being exposed to doomers is going on to learn how much of the environmentalist movement is founded on racism. Colossal Squid (talk) 18:28, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * what are you arguing against exactly? in my mind preaching anything less than climate apocalypse = excuses for doing fuck all AMassiveGay (talk) 19:20, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Australia is literally on fire and there is still rampant climate change denial in the press. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:25, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Mostly arguments along the lines of "the only way to stop climate change is human extinction or genocide," because, well, I don't want to go into what the logical conclusion of that would be on a personal level, but suffice to say that hasn't been good for my mental health. Also, there's a difference between acknowledging things are already very bad as per what climate scientists have said and Guy McPherson level hyperbole, and I'd like to be able to better distinguish between those. On a side note, I have trouble understanding why you were so vehemently against Corbyn even though he proposed getting the UK close to net zero by 2030. Colossal Squid (talk) 19:49, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * i didn't like Corbyn because he was a shit leader, his manifesto was fantasy he couldn't possibly deliver on without knowing how the land lay after Brexit - something he refused to even talk about, and his shit leadership would have (and did) give us the tories. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:47, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * What's with the "environmentalism started on racism" remark? It's an unfair jab on the movement as a whole, and disregarding tiny minorities, and assuming that's accurate, it mostly shed that. 19:55, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * True, environmentalism has a huge indigenous rights and climate justice aspect nowadays, and I'm a huge environmentalist myself. But I am referring to the elements it shed, including national parks being created on the displacement of indigenous Americans based on a false ideal of pristine, untouched wilderness (part of which fueled the massive fires of today due to the lack of controlled burning as practiced by the First Nations). Also, the Ehrlichs' infamous Population Bomb led to a mass sterilization campaign in India. I still see echoes of these in the more hard green circles. Colossal Squid (talk) 20:05, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Generalizing about 'environmentalism' is like generalizing about 'feminism'; there are multiple versions and multiple levels of stridency or extremism. It does concern me that various environmentalist proposals strike me as the sort of austerity that would need to be insulated from democracy in order to be implemented.  Give people a choice and they'll vote against it, IOW.  There are certain strains of belief that are often fellow travellers with environmentalism that do have a strong racist streak: animal rightsers interfering with Native treaty rights, handwringing over Asians eating dog meat and Latins having bullfights.  This has been going on for a long time.  Animal rights is basically a bobo version of the anti-abortion cult. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 05:00, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Related is that ecofascism will happen. Climate change is too serious a problem with too real of consequences in the coming decade or so for the right to not attempt to capture it as an issue and blame it on an other.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 05:02, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * First, they spend so much time and money denying there's a problem, then when the problem becomes too big to ignore, claim it's all the fault of poor people and immigrants for consuming too much. The framework is already set for the latter, and there have already been mass murderers with that motive. Colossal Squid (talk) 07:22, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The ineffectual posturing that surrounds the issue and marketing campaigns based on it has already crossed the line into the absurd. A local restaurant from a minor pizza chain has put up signs announcing that plastic straws are going to destroy the eartn (never dreamed it would be that easy) and that they were going to rescue the planet from them.  Their solution: a plastic top for your soft drink cup that turns it into a sippy cup, but at least no plastic straws menace the planet if you use one.  They also offer pizzas made with vegan mock-cheese and gluten free crusts made from cauliflower(!), and if that shit isn't forbidden in the book of Leviticus it sure ought to be.  Not going back; I prefer my pizza without the moral pretension. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 05:24, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do what any of us are talking about, and your petty grievances sound silly juxtaposed against a mention of ecofascism (and your misanthropic userboxes, for that matter). Then again, given your post and edit history, I shouldn't be surprised. Colossal Squid (talk) 06:08, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe. But the making up of new forms of pseudo-virtuous austerity that accuse other people of "consuming too much", does in fact lend itself to this kind of posturing.  The wealthy will conspicuously 'reduce their carbon footprint', which lends itself to marketing campaigns allowing all who are rich enough to congratulate themselves that their spending choices are all so ethical.  Which is one predictable consequence of making it all about other people's choices and how they're all 'consuming too much'. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 06:40, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Is it possible we, in all humility, can prevent this from happening again? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzYO0joolR0 Ariel31459 (talk) 21:23, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Gaia Inc. Draft
Recently, I started writing an article about Gaia Inc. (basically Netflix but exclusively shows that peddle woo of every form imaginable) after being spurred on by GMSkeptic's video, and also after seeing that one of my conservative relatives has started watching the theological side of Gaia. Is there anything that any of you would recommend to help me get the article into the mainspace? This is a subject that I know can be expanded upon greatly, so if that's the only problem, I'll do that. I just need to know what exactly would help me uplift the article's quality from where it currently stands. Representative Slip Represent yourself 00:12 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Go for it. GMS is one of the best Youtubers out there that can debunk pseudoscience. There's also a ton of BS promoted by Gaia, so it's easy to cite both videos from Gaia as well as scientific papers and articles that can debunk Gaia's claims. I would love to see the final product. — Jeh2ow Damn son!  01:15, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * If it is mission worthy and it sounds like it is- go for it. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:28, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It’s definitely missional and I flagged it in rationalwiki:Webshites/Conspiracy as a site of interest a couple of months ago after seeing a news story about one of its Facebook promotional campaigns in my country. The news story highlighted how it sucks in people by initially touting its more innocuous stuff on meditation and the like. ScepticWombat (talk) 15:51, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, and ; I’d actually say that while it’s still short, I’d not mind the article being moved from draft to main space as it is. ScepticWombat (talk) 16:03, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

I need help relating to diet and emotional issues
Okay, two weeks ago I started a diet and I lost 15 pounds. That part is good. Now here comes the real issue. I keep wanting to starve myself and purge. Before I started the diet I over ate and tried to purge. I know that I have some emotional issues I seriously need to work out. I do not want to go into anorexia or bulimia. I am trying to find the proper balance between healthy eating without endangering myself. Shit this is a fucking pain that is giving me severe anxiety. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 16:42, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * you may not want to go into bulimia, but it sounds like you are bulimic. no advice to give except talk to a professional.
 * on working out, the secret to it is making it a habit so you feel wrong if you miss a session (though that could present its own problems). baby steps - don't start on anything to intensive - it'll be difficult to keep motivated especially at first. go a for brisk walk - about an hour a day, need not be all at once, just as good as jogging. its literally the only cardio I do and i's got sick abs.
 * push ups and squats can be done anywhere, cost nothing, and take no time at all. start nice and easy and don't beat yourself up if you miss a session - the goal is building healthy habits not pain and self loathing.
 * these guys have some nice 15 min beginner workouts and are the gold standard for body weight work outs on youtube. and they are good for when you progress.
 * im an evangelist for body weight only but if you can afford it and the gym is more your speed, a personal trainer might be the way to go AMassiveGay (talk) 17:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * heres a 5 min workout AMassiveGay (talk) 17:39, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * seriously, if nothing else, just go for a stroll for as long and as frequently as you like or can manage. its literally the best exercise you can do and is just so fucking easy its ridiculous. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:47, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * good for mental health too. its like meditating AMassiveGay (talk) 17:49, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

ML vs Fascism
I think comparing Marxism-Leninism with fascism is disingenuous, since it ignores the class interests of either ideology. Fascist regimes usually result in the enforcing of the interests of the bourgeoisie, including the privatization of state owned industries, the crushing of unions, abolishing workplace safety regulations, subsidizing heavy industry, slashing minimum wage laws, among other things, whereas Marxism-Leninism usually results in an improvement in the living conditions of the common people, like how Cuba drastically increased literacy among its populace and developed one of the best healthcare systems in Latin America at the expense of economic development (profit over people), and how Mao, despite all his faults, still managed to increase literacy in China as well and created many social programs that were wildly popular. Marxist-Leninist regimes tend to be popular with the "poors" for a reason, whereas fascist regimes are more popular with the upper classes for a reason. This isn't to deny the faults of Marxism-Leninism as a political strategy, of which it has many, just that I think that equivocating the two needlessly oversimplifies things while glossing over all the extra nuance that people should really pay attention to. Setting aside the meagre social programs set up by fascists to win popular support, fascist regimes were almost always unpopular with the plebs, whereas Marxist-Leninist regimes were. — Oxyaena Harass  19:59, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm probably out of my depth here, but I thought both Marxist-Leninist and Fascist uprisings are always popular uprisings. Are you saying that fascist governments lose the favor of the poor, or that they never have it to begin with (besides the aforementioned "meager social programs")?  Taking Trump and Bolsonaro as examples of modern fascist political leaders, their main bases tend to consist of poorer individuals than their political rivals.  MirrorIrorriM (talk) 21:00, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, there's a reason rednecks support Trump. They probably won't have the benifits of having free socialist stuff, (i.e. Medicare for all) but at least they hate immigrants. — Jeh2ow Damn son!  21:04, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I got to "needlessly oversimplifies things while glossing over all the extra nuance that people should really pay attention to..." and burst out laughing. Self-awareness is a thing, you know. Try it sometime. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 21:35, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Why should I take advice from an asshole like you? Everyone here disagrees with you, fuck off with your rude shit. No-one appreciates it. You can't even come up with a response based on the actual argument I put out, only personal insults. — Oxyaena Harass  09:50, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Reading comprehension's a thing, too, and also recommended. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 12:54, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you still need to be such an asshole about it? — Oxyaena Harass  13:38, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Hypocritical or not, it's an accurate description of this particular problem. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I would agree that as a ideology Fascism and Leninism should not be compared because they are different worldviews that see things in different ways-in fact, comparing ideologies in general tends to ignore every individual ideology, no matter where they are on the political spectrum(so this is also a problem if you want to, say compare one right wing worldview to another), was created by a different group of people who lived in a time with different factors influencing their perceptions. However, comparing these particular two in the effect they have on society is completely valid, because they both result in dogmatic authoritarian mass murders coming to power. If you consider this a bad thing, which is a common perception in modern political theory, you may immediately dismiss these two Ideologies for the exact same reasons, even though they are different as belief systems. The comparison is somewhat exaggerated and should not be taken too far but does at least have a valid basis. Also, if you want to say Leninist regimes are popular with the working class, do remember they all had massive propaganda organs so take that with a grain of salt.Flandres (talk) 22:18, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Both have an equally paranoid, authoritarian streak baked right in from the start. ML has far nobler aspirations, but that's scant consolation for the misery that ensues. Keep the ideals, fuck the apologia. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 22:22, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * To be fair, if you're not paranoid, you end up like the People's Revolutionary Government of Grenada, where the US invades and deposes your entire government, shortly after a private army executes your entire leadership. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 22:33, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I take your point. Still, less paranoia all round might've prevented the revolution from eating its own and giving Reagan the excuse to go in and git some. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 12:54, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd agree on that. 13:44, 21 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Are we going into Stalin apologetics? Because I really fucking hate Stalin apologetics. 22:34, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Are we talking "real world" Fascism vs ML - the practical implementation of them as seen mainly in the 20th C? Or the theoretical underpinnings/philosophy??  'cos they're quite different things AFAIK - in many cases Real World ML did a lot of the shit that ML did - abolished unions, did away with safety regs, screwed the living standards of millions of people, prioritized industrialization ahead of everything else, etc.  Whereas "real world Fascism" also did some of the good things ML is supposed to achieve - improved living standards for millions, improved working conditions and minimum wages, etc (and no I'm not defending either but for every Cuba with more doctors there is a Holodomor with millions dead from starvation, and on the back of outright evilness you get some European middle classes thinking they've got a good deal).....   so, just asking for a friend.....where the line is?? Aloysius the Gaul 23:46, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Either we're talking in theory, then Fascism isn't about "abolishing workplace safety regulations" or such, but rather pretends just like ML to be for the improvement of the whole of society, or we're talking in practice, and then Nazi Germany also saw an improvement of living conditions for the common people and all Communist countries subsidized heavy industry. And while, yes, the regime in Cuba has done some good things, it's still a left-fascist dictatorship with living conditions for the common people far below those of their hated ennemies in the West (especially in Europe). "profit over people" is the kind of propaganda spread by those whose policies result in lower living conditions for said people."fascist regimes were almost always unpopular with the plebs, whereas Marxist-Leninist regimes were." Hu, no. Fascist regimes, either from the left or the right, have usually been hugely popular with the masses, who eat up propaganda more easily, and those type of regimes are big on propaganda. Usually, they're popular until it's not possible to maintain the Lie anymore, either because the regimes are economically crumbling, they're being crushed militarly, or they open up and people can see the difference with outside.193.56.36.23 (talk) 08:29, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Hell no, fuck Stalin. I`m maintaining that it's bad form to equivocate Marxism-Leninism with fascism when they're two completely different things. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  09:50, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Marxism-Leninism is just Red Fascism, it's the same basic views with the same basic implementation and the same basic outcome. EK (talk) 12:16, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Fasting
I found a video on fasting claiming it's healthy if done right:

I'll be honest, the video sounds legit. It elaborates on the benefits of Ketosis, but what do you guys think? 20:20, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * As someone who's chronically hungry due to poverty, I can't afford to fast. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  20:26, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * How about some hot dogs? — <font color="Red">Jeh2ow <font color="Blue">Damn son!  20:54, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * the video fails to say why you would want to fast in the first place. I'm sceptical of its use for weight loss as as it doesn't encourage healthy eating habits - you fast, lose weight, then go back to the poor dietary choices you had before and regain all the lost weight, rather than having developing healthy habits like a healthy diet with regular exercise you can stick to long term. its seems an extreme regime that doesn't seem like most people could stick too long term. and if you are not over weight, why fast at all? besides, if you must fast, who needs food if you have meth? AMassiveGay (talk) 21:46, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The video sounds like to me, frankly. There's simply not enough studies on fasting to make too many solid conclusions (except for a fair bit of studies on Ramadan fasting whose conclusions seem to lean towards slight negative health effects.) For weight loss, it seems like a strategy called "alternate fasting" or "intermittent fasting" is promising based on early studies ({1} {2] {3}), but it's probably too soon to rush to judgement here. Soundwave106 (talk) 21:52, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I feel fasting would be really bad for your metabolism as doing too much of it triggers your body to slow it down to survival mode. During that, your muscles go first, I think, before you really lose fat. Anyhow, if you want to lose weight, it seems to me to just increase your intake of fruits and vegetables while limiting red meat and processed foods. Sounds a lot more difficult in practice than paper, but again, I never struggled with weight. In fact I wonder if I don't eat enough during the day since I tend to go for one meal for an entire day with the occasional fruit. 23:10, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I saw an article from BBC 3 years ago about the benefits of eating less. And here's an article from the BBC about the health benefits of intermittent fasting. However, both articles from the BBC basically conclude that consuming less calories is healthier. According to one article, while it does have weight loss benefits:


 * In other words, if we eat three meals a day, our bodies are constantly digesting food and have little time to do maintenance. By this logic, eating one meal a day is healthier and counts as intermittent fasting. I don't know about you, but the idea of not stuffing my face all the time sounds like a good idea. Besides, you save money.
 * As for keto woo, now that you mention it, the YouTuber did mention they do the keto diet, as a side comment. In any case, other than losing a lot of weight, there's no use for a longterm absence of food to get into Ketosis. The YouTuber claims they had cognitive improvement and a differing relationship with food, but this is all anecdotal. 05:03, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * where in the video does it say eating 3 meals a day = little maintenance? that sounds completely false to me. the video talks about fasting vs calorific restriction not fasting vs eating normally. it is also worth noting that calorific restriction here is not so much cutting down on the amount of cake you eat, but starvation rations AMassiveGay (talk) 10:04, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I currently eat about 6 meals a day, have a sweeter tooth than is advised, an yesterday I went to the chippy for lunch and had a huge plate of chips. and I have abs. so there. pfft. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:12, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I fast all the time. The 8 to 12 hours I sleep at night (such yummy sleep) which is always the longest fast of the day. Then between breakfast and my morning snack, its a pretty short fast. And between the snack and lunch is also fairly short. We have enormous lunches in Spain so we can go 6 to 8 hours before an optional evening bite (I always do) and then between the evening bite and the 10pm supper (a fairly short fast) which could be more of the evening bite or a sandwhich if you're too tired to cook (I often am). I would say the easiest fast is actually the longest (cause you're sleeping) and the second easiest is the second longers (after a three course lunch you don't even want to see food for quite a few hours). My fasts never bother me because I set up my fasts in a way that I never suffer from malnutrition or a lack of vital fuel and all those knick-knacks our bodies crave. But of course, I have to fast at least a few times a day, because if I didn't I'd balloon into the person who needs a crane to remove them from tehir house to get to the hospital. So yeah...I'm all for fasts and I highly recommend fasting a few times a day! Shabi  DOO  14:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm super tired of hearing about these life-changing health things from people whose lives don't change much whether they do them or not. This definitely sounds like a "things were better when some days you just had a potato in your pocket and that was it " kind of shit.  You can be healthy on a low-calorie diet, for sure, but can you be healthy just going on a low-calorie diet? it's much easier if you have time set aside for it.  For a long time I did three meals a day, breakfast at school, lunch at school, dinner at home, thanks public schools and Mom.  As I got older, it was "drink that disgusting glass of Carnation instant breakfast so we can go," lunch at school and then dinner, thanks public schools and Mom.  Once I was old enough to drive myself to school/work, it was lunch and "no, I've eaten, thanks Mom."  Thanks, public schools.  Now I do intermittent fasting by accident on weekends if I'm not doing anything else.  Wouldn't say I'm exactly healthier for it, but these diet testimonials all include a caveat; That what you're spending the most time on in your life must be your diet.  It's nutso bonkers to think you can achieve similar results without spending a majority of your day thinking about eating and following an exercise plan.  I spend a majority of my day working.  I mean, it's not impossible to schedule healthy living in there, and not a bad thing to work for better health.  But miraculous health benefits aren't miraculous.  They're made up by people who either don't have other shit to do but sell diets to you, or are willing/able to put everything else off for the immediacy of results.  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:59, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * that's a very American view you have there. that thinking about your food is somehow a chore. its no coincidence that americans spend less time eating, literally hoovering up their meals, than europeans, and have a bigger problems with obesity. similarly its no coincidence that a lot new 'meal replacement' products come from silicon valley sleep thieves, for whom 'productivity' is the only concern in a land where long hours and little to none paid holiday is the norm.
 * weight loss diets arn't a scam in the sense that sticking to them will let you lose weight. they are scam in the sense that you cannot stick them long term. the goal is developing healthy habits and yes that does mean thinking about about what eat, what you like, and importantly, what you can stick to. the same goes for exercise too. and the thing with habits, healthy or otherwise, as noted by jillete in that linked video, is that you don't have to think about them. you just do them. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:09, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Interesting riposte, and while I admit I do eat like a dog, I will say the snacking that the youth enjoys currently is vastly comprised of non-fried vegetable-based crisps. Thought I'd British that up for you, I wouldn't want you to have a fit.  Problem with that is, it's low calorie because weight-as-health--minded adults want it for their children, but the body works on calories.  So, kids that are growing, yes, eat good things, but it's not exactly satisfying caloric needs.  Then they get their hands on cheap, high calorie, low nutrient food that they can afford.  But yeah, alright. America's main problem with food must be lunchbreaks are too short and so nobody picks at their potatoes enough to derive their true pleasure. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Seen on twitter
Not usually one for social media, but that chart and sentiment seems like A+ rationalwiki material. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:28, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, now I know how long it takes before those supplements actually do jack shit. — <font color="Red">Jeh2ow <font color="Blue">Damn son!  21:30, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * To be fair, doesn't the same happen to food? 22:40, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Here's the chart as an interactive panable zoomable map. I'm not gonna lie, it kinda kicks ass and covers some of my biggest gaps in biology knowledge.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:11, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Fabulous chart. Good catch! Shabi  DOO  14:23, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

The end of capitalism and Davos
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMdZSbfjLNI Beau's an anarchist journalist, and here he reports on the Davos findings. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  19:08, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * He's not a journalist. He's got a YouTube channel and has opinions. Bongolian (talk) 21:08, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I’m tired of talking heads on YouTube. 21:22, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No, he's a journalist. He's an expert on foreign affairs. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  23:25, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I doubted that he was a journalist too, but apparently, he's a digital journalist. His real name is Justin King, and he evidently has enough clout to get interviews with Anonymous clowns.  The article I'm reading also makes the claim that he reported on the Nigeria schoolgirl kidnappings before "mainstream media" picked up the story.  He's a little bit more than a talking head, but I don't know what to actually call him.  Link to an article profiling him here: http://www.digitaljournal.com/internet/profile-of-a-digital-journalist-activism-fuels-justin-king/article/398161 Representative Slip Represent yourself 16:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The term is "citizen journalist". Digital Journal is a citizen journal site, but not a terribly cranky one (they apparently fact check and perform quality control), and they seem to be reasonable. Outside of there I'd lean towards him also being in the "fringe journalist" category based on his writings at thefifthcolumnnews.com -- fringe is not necessarily bad, he is level-headed, but heavy on the op-ed and selection bias, reflecting his background as an anarchist with a bit of a shady past. Okay for certain subjects, probably not for others. I skimmed the video as best I could (ugh this is what I hate about videos, much harder to summarize), and the "peak decade" aspect is a correct thing people are concerned about in business. The "peak capitalism" he was going about is where it seemed to devolve into LateStageCapitalism type stuff, it is quite different from the "stakeholder capitalism" promoted by the World Economic Forum (aka what everyone calls "Davos") and is now C-level trendy. (Whether anything meaningful comes from this more cuddly capitalism being promoted as the "next new paradigm", who knows.) That stakeholder capitalism is trendy does suggests many people, even in higher positions, are well aware that the current version of capitalism is not working well for a lot of people. Soundwave106 (talk) 17:00, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * What exactly is the problem with the concept of "late stage capitalism" beyond it being "fringe"? And why did you dismiss him as a journalist? Are you gatekeeping now? — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena  <font color="Magenta">Harass  17:39, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Nothing "wrong" per se but it's honestly speculation and opinion which unfortunately is over-gloomy too often. Historically (it's a late 19th century term) the track record has been bad at predicting. Listening further, though, I think he was confusing "socialism" though with heavier mixed economies like the . This isn't really socialism, certainly not the totalitarian USSR type, but that's an understandable misnomer given that conservative talking heads have been screaming "SOCIALISM!" as a snarl word about anything European (or even fuckin' California) since forever. So I'll forgive that, a move towards that model is certainly possible (even if in parts, it certainly would be quite welcome on things such as the honestly quite sucky US health care system). Soundwave106 (talk) 18:17, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I enjoyed the man with a beard telling me how smart the people are at Davos, and how good they are at sorting stuff out. So yeah, roll the credits. Capitalism's done, here comes socialism. Wheeeee! Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 20:27, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * What's your fucking problem? — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  21:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No-one here is under any obligation to take you or your political views the least bit seriously. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 23:45, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Political Radical use latest news to deduce that the system is going crashing down, like, tonight, and very very soon the whole world will be adopting said Political Radical favorite ideology, episode 43868 [/sarcasm]. Look, the best results for living conditions have been achieved by mixed systems, nordic-model style. Anarchy leads to Somalia. Communism leads to North Korea. Then there's a whole range of economico-political systems that actually provide a working society, and a subset of those that seems to be providing the best results. Those guys like Beau are flirting closely with some acts and opinion that would be on-mission at RationalWiki.193.56.36.27 (talk) 10:02, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * does not communism require some sort of post-scarcity society to exist? is that even possible? im thinking not. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:23, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Imho, for workable communism, yes. Theoretical, marxist-style communism doesn't need a post-scarcity economy, just an industrial one. "Village communism" is doabl-ish, that was basically the state for a lot of neolithic-ancient-medieval communities, held together by social credit. For the modern world ? Impossible, to me. I don't think post-scarcity is impossible though, just it's going to be hard and long to reach.193.56.36.27 (talk) 10:54, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * "Anarchy leads to Somalia" Somalia is still ruled by feuding warlords that still provide some semblance of a state. You have zero absolute clue what you're talking about, look at how Rojava is run instead. "Communism leads to North Korea," again things are far more complicated than you think here. There was NEVER "communism" in North Korea, it was a puppet state of the social imperialist Soviet Union, nothing more and nothing less, and credit where credit's due at least North Korea has universal public housing. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  15:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * @Oxyaena. "Somalia is still ruled by feuding warlords" Yep, what anarchy leads to in real life. "look at how Rojava is run instead" So, you mean that Rojava doesn't have "some semblance of a state"? Oh dear the cognitive dissonance of anarchists (whetever right or left) is hilarious! "There was NEVER "communism" in North Korea, it was a puppet state of the social imperialist Soviet Union" -> No_True_Communism. "at least North Korea has universal public housing" Well, I hear that at least they don't make the reeducation camps inmates pay for their lodgings...193.56.36.22 (talk) 07:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

, that's hardly gatekeeping on my part. We are a mobocracy after all. I couldn't gatekeep all by myself even if I tried. I don't know if Beau actually calls himself a journalist, but I do think that people who use professional names should be evidentially so. In the case of journalists, they should either 1) have a journalism degree 2) work for a MSM news organization as a journalist or 3) agree to a recognized journalist code of ethics (e.g., this one[]). Note that conducting oneself in agreement with #3 oneself to be a citizen journalist. One part of #3 is distinguishing between reportage and commentary, the latter of which was clearly what this video was about. Bongolian (talk) 19:27, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe you know that the MSM isn't all it's cracked up to be. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  20:23, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * What exactly defines anarchism? Rojava, from what I can tell, has some form of overarching governmental structure, and definitely has a military force, which seems to imply the existence of a central authority. My understanding is that anarchism seeks a stateless society, but perhaps I misunderstand what constitutes the state (or anarchism)? 35.2.205.26 (talk) 00:24, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You do. Rojava is a democratic confederalist type of society ran by freely associating communes involving direct democracy as the form of decision making, it's the exact opposite of what anarchists oppose, a coercive, hierarchical system with uneven and unjust power relations. Rojava ain't perfect of course, we're all only human. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  06:34, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Journalism in the 21st century, or how I stopped worrying and learned to love the lies
If the reducing clarity of what it means to be a journalist were just drifting in from the internet-person-with-social-media side, I'd have a lot easier time just going with "yeah none of these dipshits are journalists". But that's not all that's happening. "Real" news sources everywhere are dying off, just re-reporting on someone elses' reporting with no new information, regurgitating what a government official says, and filling space with opinion because it's cheaper. The number of actual human beings who have the job of going to a place where things are happening, investigating what's actually happening, and writing about it is continually shrinking and is a tiny fraction of what it was 20 years ago.

This is bad. And it makes the distinction of being a "real" journalist increasingly meaningless. Who cares if you work for a website that used to press ink on pages if all you're doing is sitting in a white house briefing office and passing along what they say? Who cares if you're an anchor for a local news station if all you do is read the copy a Sinclair Broadcasting script manager produced for a corporate sponsor?

Yeah, no one sitting in their living room talking to a camera is a journalist, but increasingly, neither are journalists. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:31, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Except Beau is one of the people who don't do just that. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  22:27, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * All the videos you link here are, and I'm not particularly inclined to go searching for more videos by youtube talking heads, for reasons I've articulated in the past. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:14, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't know what you lot are talking about, I just listen to NPR; Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me is my trusted source for all news. Comrade General Pootis (talk) 14:29, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

if you like pod casts...
...a chat with an atheist biblical scholar AMassiveGay (talk) 12:28, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Just when I thought the cops in my area were idiots
Driving home today, me and my family saw a telephone pole that was on fire. There was a fire truck and two fire fighters there. Instead of doing anything they were just standing around doing nothing. Now the kicker, the burning phone pole was next to a gas station. Why were they just standing there? They did not even have a hose out to extinguish the fire! Dammit those fire fighters were idiots. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 20:35, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * They probably had a good reason to do what they did. You shouldn't be conjuring up assumptions about professions you're not even part of. 21:07, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * They may well have been waiting for the power to be turned off. It's probably not a good idea to spray water onto a live and burning electrical conductor. On the other hand, they may have surmised that the fire would burn itself out. --Annanoon (talk) 21:15, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * They were probably following proper procedure due to the chemicals on the pole, and possibly the transformer at the top of the pole. See this link for proper proceudures, which advises not to apply a direct stream of water. Bongolian (talk) 21:16, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Why are you a cop apologist? — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  21:50, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Whoa, I was not sticking up for the cops . The cops in my area are still morons who do not follow the laws made. I did not know that you should not attempt to put out a electrical fire with water. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 22:07, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Pigs are violent thugs, they deserve no sympathy. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  22:08, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I was not sticking up for cops at all. They are thugs who do not follow the laws made. I never actually said anything supporting cops. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 22:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I was talking to LGM, not you lol. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  22:12, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Why did you just insinuate I was one just when I was telling Rationalzombie to not immediately assume malicious intent from firefighters? Why did you have to turn this into a personal rant about the millions of people that work for a profession you dislike? 22:36, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Said profession regularly tears down homeless encampments, murders innocent, unarmed people, engages in violent brutal conduct all the goddamn time, and there is hardly any meaningful recourse as to exact meaningful justice on these violent, murderous criminals. Just because you're privileged enough to have good relations with the police doesn't mean others share your experiences. Circumspice. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  15:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * For fuck's sake. From the description RZ gave, this appeared to be a pole pig (electrical transformer) fire, and the first responders were almost certainly following proper procedures. First responders are not deserving of such venom as expressed in this thread. Those who express such opinions should be ashamed of themselves. Cosmikdebris (talk) 01:55, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I find myself in complete agreement.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 07:37, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll be fair, some of the United States has over-militaristic police policies that seemingly attract fascist GI Joe wannabes who are too stupid to pass the ASVAB :p Cops as a whole don't deserve the venom, but the United States is the *only* first world country I've been too where I've encountered cops who seem to use Full Metal Jacket-style as their role model for citizen relations. (Usually eye-roll worthy since the cops who are in this bark-bark-bark mode exhibit very poor actual knowledge of the law.) Luckily this is not even all cops in the US though. Soundwave106 (talk) 13:29, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

To clear the air here, I did not know the protocol involving electrical fires. I am sorry about that part. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 13:09, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * "Pigs are violent thugs, they deserve no sympathy." Well, that seems like a nuanced, reasonable and full of empathy generalization about hundreds of thousands of people. [/sarcasm]193.56.36.27 (talk) 13:45, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Consider it a necessary antithesis to the absurd notions that cops are sufficiently policed and in danger when they don't use excessive force. Once "blue lives matter" became a party line, the only reasonable reaction is to necessarily view cops as enemies.  The center position was cut off that only leaves the extremes.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:28, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * From my interactions with the police, and how they are of no help during domestic violence situations (they often only make the situation worse), I think it's fair that I have little empathy for people who threatened to slap me and my family with a "nuisance charge" for having the absolute gall to call 911 more than once in a single year. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  15:10, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yep, because cops are all the same, that's a thing we know. Totally reasonable to make inferences from your anecdotal evidence. [/sarcasm] My local cops are rather bad too, but you don't see me blaming the entire profession. Maybe it's because I do have other examples. My judo teacher and one of my oldest friends are cops. They're not violent thugs and deserve empathy. Maybe you should use a bit more empathy too. Cops are not Nazis or Guardians of the Revolution, they're not bad by essence.193.56.36.22 (talk) 07:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't hate the police, but I think it's only reasonable to have an extreme instinctive distrust of them. Also, I'm sorry to hear that happened to you, Oxy. That sucks. 15:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You can tell the USians here by the level of distrust/dislike of the Fuzz. I rather like the police in the UK. Of course there's bad 'uns but On average they're good. Scream!! (talk) 23:18, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * @ikanreed. "Once "blue lives matter" became a party line, the only reasonable reaction is to necessarily view cops as enemies" Oh, so, once Political_People_You_Don't_Like show support for Group, it's a good reason to treat Group as a monobloc of enemies? Well, THAT sounds like a nuanced, reasonable and full of empathy political though process! [/sarcasm].193.56.36.22 (talk) 07:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I tend to treat the dumb parrots that parrot the "blue lives matter" line as, well, dumb parrots, because they are completely failing to address the "black lives matter" concerns at all, and are in fact the most likely people to get outraged by small little protests at their American football ritual. And before you Political_People_You_Don't_Like, it's actually the libertarians (a group I typically find over-naive) who have been done the biggest groundwork in highlighting US police militarization over the last couple decades. Soundwave106 (talk) 13:53, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Fuck off with your strawmen. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  13:47, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * @Oxyaena Strawmen compared as, let's say, "Pigs are violent thugs, they deserve no sympathy.", which does not strawman cops, like, at all. [/sarcasm] Look, I'm just parroting back what people have been saying and pointing their craziness. And, I mean, I find accusations of strawmanning coming from "The term "capitalist democracy" is an oxymoron"-Oxyaena a bit hilarious.
 * @Soundwave106. Hem, I... wasn't talking about that? Like, at all? My point was that I find that to consider a whole profession enemies because some people you're opposed to are supporting them is crazy extremism. I'm not arguing about the dangerous militarization of US police in general, which is a fine point to make but irrelevant to the point I was raising.193.56.36.22 (talk) 14:51, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * How is that a strawman? Have you ever heard of the term "economic democracy" and how that relates to capitalism? — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  14:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * @Oxyaena Because painting capitalism, an economic system, as inherently opposed to democracy, which is a political system where the legitimacy lies in the Will of the People, is strawmaning both capitalism and democracy and being only faintly better than comparing apples to oranges. Oh, and painting all cops as inherently violent thuggish pigs is also a strawman.193.56.36.21 (talk) 11:53, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That's fair enough, I think I was more responding that concern over excessive police force is less Party Red vs. Party Blue and is actually somewhat bi-partisan (yes it's generally considered a concern of the left, but it crosses over into libertarian lines and the best analysis on the issue tends to actually come from them IMHO). I just find the "blue lives matter" movement rather extreme in itself in that it trivializes racial discrepancies in law enforcement in the United States with basically whataboutism concerning violence against law enforcement, and tops it off with casually racist, flag-waving jingoist nonsense (as demonstrated by the Colin Kaepernick affair). I don't see all cops as enemies and will let those making those points to defend their hasty over-generalizations. But due to the militarization, I personally am wary of law enforcement in the United States (even as someone of relative privilege) and I cannot say that about any other first world nation I have visited. Soundwave106 (talk) 15:37, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * @Soundwave106 OK! I mostly agree with what you say, I was just mockign Oxyaena for her hasty overgeneralizations :) 193.56.36.21 (talk) 11:53, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * A few years ago, outside my window on the street in Madrid a latino couple (marginalized people in Madrid) were drunk and screaming threats at each other at two in the morning. The police came pretty quickly and spent what must have been one hour gently talking to them. The couple told the police to fuck off and mind their own business and screamed at each other. The police told them that they shouldn't talk to people that way and to be nicer to each other and respectful of their neighbors etc. The guy screamed insults and threats in the policemen's face and the woman begged them to arrest her piece of shit husband. At one point the guy was swatting at his wife and the wife was daring him to actually hit her. The policemen held the two apart by holding their hands up (minimal force). They never once raised their voices or threatened arrest. Must have taken a dozen really vile insults about their mothers and how ugly on of the policemans stupid face was, held the two apart for several minutes, calming them down again and again (only for them to start up once more). After about an hour the couple apologized to each other, apologized to the policemen, agreed not to argue anymore that night, to walk home by different routes leaving in opposite directions to cool off. No arrest. No handcuffs. No unpleasant aggression. The whole thing wasn't surprising or particularly unique. I could never be a Spanish local policeman (I have multiple LGTB+ friends in the force). I could not possibly have that kind of patience to deescalate problems dealing with stupid people on the street. I would likely be an American style COP and just arrest them after the first insult and threat and use my tazer at the first slightest sign of resistance. I'd be fired in Madrid after a week. I imagine I'd be highly decorated in Detroit.  Shabi  DOO  00:10, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * And the police in Taiwan are lovely. Or at least they are to light skinned foreigners. In my first week here, a police officer drove me home when it became obvious that I was lost because I'd walked past the police station five times. And the police here did their best to help me the time I woke up in a tomato field without my shoes or my glasses. Spud (talk) 01:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 'woke up in a tomato field without my shoes or my glasses' ahhh brits abroad are the same everywhere AMassiveGay (talk) 12:45, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm in the U.S. and the police in my area subverted a would-be shooter at my community college (there was warning to not attend, which I complied). So, yeah, prevented a disaster at my place. 03:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * America has such a boner for people in uniform going to work and doing their job. You did the required police work to warn citizens about a disaster you heard of. You deserve a round of applause and a parade. It is something people in other countries are baffled about when we see it in Hollywood movies. A parade for doing their job. It's fascinating. Shabi  DOO  05:28, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I've seen videos of American officers trying to reason with sovcits for like 20 minutes straight (basically asking one to show the license and hearing the sovcit recite typical lines, rinse and repeat) before breaking the window. Those kinds of cops should get rewarded regardless what you think imo. Also that kind of response I got was kinda... Odd because if a potential shooting in a nation that's been plagues by shooting has been subverted, that should be praise. 07:47, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * they should be praised for trying to talk people down from mischief, but then you get stories like this AMassiveGay (talk) 12:29, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The officer at least won a suit, but this system's totally messed up deep inside. Hence why Black Lives Matter, I see as a legitimate movement while blue lives matter is just a reaction movement that tries to deflect away (why else would it borrow the language if it was genuinely about police). By the way, I was told war vets can make for better police since they know what aggression looks like or not. 18:11, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I remember I had an online argument with a guy from the states once. He wanted to know why people in the UK do what the police say even though the police are not armed. My argument that the police (where they do carry arms) carry them for personal and civil protection rather than to intimidate civilians into obedience didn't convince him. I would be interested to know if his opinion is generalized in the states.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:57, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * While we shouldn't draw too many conclusions about this, their approach to doing what the police say, is about the same as how the American religious approach morality. I don't steal because God said I shouldn't. Which is, seriously, little different from "I do what the police says cause he has a gun". It's quite similar in regards to the UK (whose police form is gradually become more armed by the way). "I don't steal because I don't want to live in a society where people steal, I've worked out myself why it is wrong and I would be guilty if I did it and I don't think its justifiable to do so and I don't want to be a hippocryte etc." Is not that far different to "I do what the police say, not only because they could run after me, but even if I could outrun them, I don't want to live in a society where people run away from the law and I think its entirely reasonable that we have a force of people who RESPONSIBLY and FAIRLY help identify or stop those who break our rules and help those in distress. I need them when I'm in danger. I'll go along with what they say if they see a problem (especially if you have any level of trust in the system and don't expect the police to be crooked, overly aggressive or douchey). I think when you only follow the rules because you want to avoid the consequences your sense of morality is empty. And if you rule as a police mostly through the threat of your gun, your social order is broken and toxic. Shabi  DOO  00:30, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Honestly, most of us are decent people who would obey the police because...well we were taught to be decent to begin with and it's good to be nice to other people and obey people tasked with the peacekeeping. You can't say this for everyone, however, and that's exactly why we need law enforcement, to deal with shitty people who break the law and hurt others because they're morally bankrupt (but then again, criminals come in all shapes and colors and no two of them are alike, and how the police runs also varies greatly from department to department, fact is, some departments will have more shitheads and will be worse equipped to deal with their communities than others). I'm from the states, and that's how I view them as necessary. Repercussions IS a factor I'm taking as well, to be completely honest, but not stealing or not assaulting or illegal trafficking or whatever, doing things that actively harm other people, that's a priority. 00:40, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * when we say 'obey the police' what is meant here - the directions of police in actual physical encounters or do we mean the law in in general? I don't have much interactions with the police, but if told to move along, I probably would. if im in some sort of incident, serious or minor, I would probably do as im told. why wouldn't I? I gain nothing at that point to be argumentative, getting nicked for threatening the police, obstructing them or just general raucous disobedience is pointless. its not worth any point I think I could make such situations, and if I am at risk of arrest for a genuine crime, say ive a gram of t in the back pocket, why draw attention to myself and id probably want to get in the books so they might just let me off with a bollocking if I have some done some crime. I see people arguing the toss with police all the time or insist on kicking and screaming to the bitter end for the most minor infractions. its pointless. you pick your fights.


 * ive seen a neighbour take a similar stance at our housing association. shes been a in a long drawn out battle with them for a while. she refuses to comply with request she gets to help her case, every interaction is a confrontation, thinks everything is a battle she needs to win when all she does drew everything out, marks as just a crank, and an real issues she needs to actually kick up about is taken that less seriously. I suspect its down to sense of powerless or lack of agency. its like an attempt to gain some sense of control over a situation in face of a seemly faceless bureaucracy, an individual case worker or police officer becomes the focus of your frustration - the system to big to manage but a single representative is a nemesis you could handle. but your not their nemesis, your just another case for their workload, and any victories are in your head, a testament to stubbornness and intransigence, while the situation is further drawn out and further from your favour.


 * my neighbours situation, and many dealing with police, often have people at their worst, tempers run high, and judgement is impaired. where possible, it usually best to go with the flow. do what is asked, show that you are reasonable, minor incidents will end speedily, and it helps you further down the line if it can be seen that you've done all that has been asked of you.


 * as for law in general - you are taught from a young age usually to not steal, to not commit violence, and most people don't want to hurt others or deprive them of the property - most folk have some level of empathy. for more faceless victims, say shop lifting from marks and sparks, risk - reward is not really worth it to make most even consider it. something like pirating a movie over the internet is often seen as victimless and its ease and low risk make it something more folk could contemplate. there are many crimes where it is so easy to commit by accident laziness or simply ignorance, like speeding, or littering, generally minor stuff resulting in fines at worst.


 * the obvious crimes, thieving, violence, regularly done and not just one off lapses in judgement are done by people forced by circumstance to go down that road. a homeless person may feel compelled to shoplift for food, the more its done, its almost habit, you shoplift more than immediate need. others are just surrounded by others committing crimes, gangs and the like. you may get drawn in, it may seem a viable option when you tire of having nothing when the drug dealers have all the best clothes and latest iPhone, may just wanna fit in.


 * we might follow some rules and regs because they are rules and regs without thinking why that they are the rules, but theft, fraud, violence - crimes of that nature, we learn early on why they are generally wrong, we can easily explain why they wrong even if we don't have to think about not committing them. but we can all be tempted once in a while, say not scan a tin of beans at the self checkout, and we all think of instances where you feel justified breaking laws, and we can rationalise why its okay break some laws even when we know, generally, that we shouldn't.


 * someone who only obeys the police because they have guns is just a prick. if they only obey laws because of the same reason - armed police - they probably should be in jail. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:50, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Anyone here do skeptical activism?
Besides editing this site of course does anyone here do anything else to help combat pseudoscience? Mostly asking this for curiosity but I am also thinking of fighting against pseudoscience outside of the confines of rationalwiki so I'm wondering how other people do it. Vorarchivist (talk) 04:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It's most effective if you both know your science well and know your audience. A lot of pseudoscience consists of popular myths that get repeated by the media and the community around a person, and it's easiest to steer people away from myths they only believe because they never heard the facts debunking them before. The more pernicious pseudoscience peddlers, such as anti-vaxxers or climate denialists, do so out of religious devotion to the answer they want to believe, and you will not convince them directly. It's more productive to minimize their influence, again with regards to people who only parrot pseudoscience because they never heard the opposing facts before. Colossal Squid (talk) 07:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I`m active in fighting creationist nonsense. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  12:34, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I second that. — <font color="Red">Jeh2ow <font color="Blue">Damn son!  15:17, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No. I do not consider skepticism a field that requires substantial activism at present, with a few exceptions, like if governments start pursuing creationism in schools or allowing excessive vaccination exemptions.  Continuing to educate where you can is good though. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:40, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * you do understand that there are pro pseudomedicine laws and regulations currently in many government's books right?Vorarchivist (talk) 17:00, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I do! They also don't make the top of my political agenda.  The material harms of those laws are real, and given a situation where I have meaningful power to affect the outcome, I'll always take the skeptical side.  But there's other things hurting more people worse.   ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Amen. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  19:09, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * what form does this sceptical activism take? AMassiveGay (talk) 19:10, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Good news out of Utah
https://www.newsweek.com/utah-lgbtq-conversion-therapy-law-1483039?fbclid=IwAR1D4_loNGub9h6YFZs6dYZXlYd8F_8a__Kl9odKR0WjM6V7BPDqLPSNxVQ

This article shows the increased acceptance of LGBT+ youth. It is a good thing. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 13:40, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Times infinity. — <font color="Red">Jeh2ow <font color="Blue">Damn son!  15:17, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Publishing
Is anyone here a published writer? I`m looking to submit a rather small essay/memoir of mine, it's the first I've actually sought to publish, and I`m totally lost here. Any help? — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  13:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Barnes & Noble Press is great for self-publishers. You should try it. — <font color="Red">Jeh2ow <font color="Blue">Damn son!  15:51, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I am working on a novel myself. I will be going the self-publishing route. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 16:09, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I mean like magazines and shit. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  16:14, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I own a printer, does that count as published? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:21, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. I'd highly highly highly recommend, if it is fiction, to join online (and even better in person) writing groups. Via discord there are several writing groups who can be utterly invaluable for giving utterly brutal vicious constructive criticism (which is what ever writer needs the most). Same with a good writing circle (great way to meet people too). I would recommend acclimatizing yourself to criticism through peers critiquing your work, so that you can handle the trashing of your work when its done. For me, if I'm happy with it and I find at least some good reception among my peers (especially if they brutally tore apart my writing during the writing process) and fellow writers...I can fairly easily brush off bad reception to the work. There are numerous avenues for self publishing with very different costs. Don't feel bad about self-publishing, even some established writers are getting into it. I would say, in my humble opinion the top three things I've always considered when writing (which is mostly academic work but these principles still apply) are: 1. Less is more. Your audiences free time to read is precious. Don't waste their time. 2. Stay true to your values and express them: don't hesitate to bash those values over your audiences head if they are important ones. 3. Don't be a diva...seek brutally honest critique and thank them for it. Return the favor by spending considerable time critiquing others' work. Shabi  DOO  18:23, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I suggest you email your pitch to laura.bennett@slate.com if you wanna have your essay appear on Slate. The average pay is about 24 cents per word. For more info, check out their company guidelines. — <font color="Red">Jeh2ow <font color="Blue">Damn son!  18:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I am only up to chapter 3 with my novel. Damn writers block. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 21:33, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Try looking at relevant groups on LI, FB etc; and post some things to fandom (eg AO3) and similar contributory websites (check beforehand for user behaviour - in some cases, apparently, there is a high degree of unfriendliness - authors abuse readers who do not like their work, readers rubbish authors, commentators disagree with each other, cliques and other negativity). Anna Livia (talk) 20:23, 25 January 2020 (UTC)