RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive300

Terrorism in Popular Culture
We all know world events have massive influence in popular culture. The idea here is to discussfree speech.

Now in the two part South Park episode "Cartoon Wars", Islamic extremists threaten the producers of Family Guy due to them showing Muhammad uncensored. The racist character Eric Cartman basically takes advantage of the situation to get rid of Family Guy because he basically wants to suppress free speech. Eric Cartman uses terrorist tactics himself to get rid of Family Guy.

I know what I mean but I am not sure how to word this. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:42, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Incitement has long been illegal and out of bounds for free speech. Incitement is when a reasonable person would discern a call to commit illegal acts.  We have, as a country, extrajudicially drone bombed american citizens for calling people to commit terrorism on the internet.  Any boundary of free speech needs to understand that existing boundary almost everyone seems to tacitly approve of.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:16, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It's been a while since I've seen that particular episode, but by my vague recollection Cartman isn't trying to shut down Family Guy to suppress free speech, but for the purpose of getting rid of something he doesn't like (I want to say it is that he feels that Family Guy is effectively stealing his humor, but I might be remembering that wrong). Cartman seems to be presenting what Stone/Parker perceive as a logical conclusion and psychoanalysis of people using "it offends [insert culture here]" to shut down something: these people would go to any extreme to get what they want, and what they really care about is getting rid of stuff they just don't like, rather than actually caring about [insert culture here].
 * As ikanreed said, there's been a generally recognized line that can be crossed where free speech is no longer protected, but where to place that line has shifted. Within the US context, sedition or anything that carried the whiff of sedition was not protected until roughly halfway through the 20th century. The line has generally moved to be more permissive, and for the most part the standard is incitement to violence and (theoretically) libel. Though even then you have people who disagree about whether specific actions constitute incitement or libel. An interesting case that is rarely brought up (but is still technically precedent) is Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, which stated that saying something that causes a reasonable person to attack you is causing disorderly conduct, and thus you can be held liable for that. You don't see it brought up a whole lot, though, but within the context of the debate over protecting free speech versus potentially inviting a terrorist attack, that would be the most pertinent area of jurisprudence.
 * As a bit of a digression, a question that doesn't get discussed a whole lot is the validity of non-physical/economic harms. If I say something that causes another person to punch you in the face, that would ostensibly be incitement, and therefore not protected. If I say something that I know to be false that causes you to lose your reputation or job, that would be libel. If I say something that harms you in some other way, such as by causing you to become depressed and/or suicidal, or might cause or exacerbate some illness, or anything of those lines, does that cross the line like incitement/libel does (assume, for the sake of argument, that the statement is false)? A case like Snyder v. Phelps (dealing with a protest by the Westboro Baptist Church) raises that question, though the decision of the Court was that the WBC is ultimately protected. There are plenty of other cases that sit on these kinds of fences. --Mabian (talk) 20:31, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Thoughts on Thomas Nagel's Mind and Cosmos?
Title is kinda self-explanatory. 21:34, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Until I went to the amazon page and saw the subtitle, I had hopes there was something to this. But "why the materialist neodarwinian conception of nature is almost certainly false" is a pretty high-tier bullshit thesis.  Rather than give money to some fundie, I'll see if I can't find some excerpts to analyze...(okay you're just going to have to imagine that there's a break here where I actually did this)


 * We are off to a thrilling start, courtesy of goodreads. Just look at this shit.  Intelligent design as a good example of taking it to the materialists, instead of terrible, badly done materialism with a deity injected for no reason.


 * And yep, they're a fundie creationist who wants to not be called a creationist.   This is philosophobabble.  "Not just any outcome could qualify as Telos"  Let's not take time to identify some falsifiable definition of our valid subset of outcomes we assign purpose to.  Just be certain, dear reader, that you are in a universe that meets that criteria, and some different one, different in a very nonspecific way, wouldn't have Telos and could be deemed natural.  Don't worry about it.  It's okay.  Just an intelligent designer with unspecified purpose, that we're inferring is present through my genius intuition.
 * It's intelligent design. Again.  The exact same watchmaker bullshit, but this one does it with pseudophilosophy instead of pseudoscience.  Whoop de fucking do.  On to another quote.


 * But whatever you do, definitely don't use any kind of observational evidence or empirical methodology. You might decide that duplicating nucleic acids are affected by random copy errors that suggest a source of informational entropy could be selected for without Jesus.  Or that cosmological background radiation is consistent with a hot quark soup, or that stars and planets form in predictable patterns according to some "laws" of "physics".


 * Science has been wrong before the book!


 * Don't ask me to show an example of a process not moderated by the laws of physics though. The universality of their applicability so far shouldn't cause you to assume a worldview where that's true.  God what a crazy idea, not finding a single exception to a rule after a century of trying, then thinking it might be almost entirely right.  Crazy.


 * Allow me to refer to my favorite paper for this one sentence.


 * Buddy you could have just said "I don't know what darwinism means"
 * Alright, I'm tired of playing right now, but plenty more quotes of similar quality here. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 22:04, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I worry that you fall prey to the genetic fallacy often. Anyway, I'd hardly call something published by OUP the work of a fundie. But thanks for your thoughts. 22:47, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You're the one explicitly making the argument that the publisher of a work defines its quality while simultaneously suggesting I fall prey to the genetic fallacy. I don't really know how to respond to that.  Do you know what the genetic fallacy is?  Do you really???  Because arguing it's fundie bullshit because its opening position celebrates fundie bullshit is... uh... not that.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 05:51, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * While I believe in intelligent design to some degree (not going to argue about it), evolution has rock solid evidence that cannot be ignored. Questioning a theory is perfectly fine, but the brain dead creationists twist questioning a theory to fit their anti-science agenda. I am not the type of guy to push intelligent design into schools. It would result in the strict teaching of Christian creationism and outright ignore evolution. Keep religion out of school --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:40, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * What surprises me the most about this thread is that we appear to have no idea who Thomas Nagel is or what this book is actually about. 01:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Fuck off. Don't ask me to try give an opinion about something, and when I look into it, find it has problems, declare me to "not know anything".  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 05:51, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I looked at the quotes ikanreed put out and it reads to me like New Age babble. 05:57, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * He's a philosopher, so sure. It is my opinion though that on these questions, philosophy has kind of reached a dead end, whereas the neurosciences are discovering more and more every day. We still don't know a lot about the brain, but we are learning -- at this point, I think we know enough IMHO that a 100% rejection of a neurochemical view of mind and consciousness doesn't make sense, either. ("Materialism" seems like a simpler concept than neuroscience per the Wiki on it so maybe a push back on that particular area makes sense). I will also add that genetic / evolutionary algorithms are an interesting (if more experimental) area of artificial intelligence, and IMHO in some cases are a pretty clear demonstration how something "intelligent" can emerge from mere evolutionary processes (a process I'll add that, even in the narrow genetic algorithm scope, sometimes leaves programmers baffled to exactly how the solution works) Soundwave106 (talk) 15:40, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Out of curiosity, does it confound abiogenesis with evolution, claims "evolutionism" is a pseudoscience rejected by most scientists, and spews out the same PRATTs about complex organics being impossible to form (argument of probability)?. Panzerfaust (talk) 14:28, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * THE FUCKING WATCHERMAKER ARGUMENT AGAIN?!?!?!?! THESE STUPIDASS PRATTS DRIVE ME FURTHER AND FURTHER INTO ANTI-THEISM!!! RATHER ADDRESS CRITICISM THESE DISINGENUOUS TWATWAFFLES REPEAT THE SAME TIRED TALKING POINTS AD NASEUM, TO THE POINT THE IT MAKES ME PHYSICALLY ILL TO HEAR THEM. COME UP WITH SOMETHING NEW AND BETTER YOU STUPID LITTLE SHITS, AND MAYBE, JUST MAYBE, WE'LL RECONSIDER YOUR POSITION. UNTIL THEN SHUT THE FUCK UP, YOU HAVE NOTHING WORTH HEARING!!!  Ok, rant over, I feel better now.  16:03, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * To be fair, the watchmaker argument isn't actually central to the book, just done as a throwaway justification to other, more subtly bad ideas. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * In order, no, no, yes. At least in the introduction he pointedly avoids the first two things but does the third under the pretenses that intelligent design's jaqqing off revealed real problems.  This is not a claim he actually substantiates anywhere.  Oh no, he just pretends Behe had good points about "irreducible complexity" hidden under the mistake of being religious.
 * One more quote from goodreads for me to hate


 * This is just nitpicking difference his stupid dualistic worldview has with reams of evidence and declaring the evidence wrong. He's a creationist, but only for qualia.  It's dumb.  Guys like this are why dualism delenda est.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Kill me now, death is a mercy compared to this Creationist magnum opis. 16:39, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

(reset) The real universe exists, and there are explanations that make sense (for now) that explain much of it (and explanations for other bits will be developed). Evolution exists (at least on Earth) and there are explanations for significant parts of it (with at least some of 'the issues' involving how certain aspects start off), especially if one accepts that "there are many, many generations involved and the law of unexpected consequences and the 'law of information later considered essential not being recorded' apply)" and all the rest of it.

However there is 'the sense of being a person/having an identity - and that other persons and at least some animals possess the same (and there is no accounting for other people's bad taste/lack of judgement)' and the idea possessed by many diverse cultures that 'deity or deities exist' (and do more than just provide an explanation for the way the world behaves and crops fail etc); and the senses of wonder and humour, and that 'there is more to Heaven and Earth than in a purely scientific philosophy.'

There are those who feel that their religious-ethical-philosophical beliefs add to the way in which they observe and operate in the world, encourages them to make the right decision, improve things and also others, and are willing to engage with other viewpoints (and walk in each other's shoes), and then there are those who stick to the worldview imposed on them and wish to inflict it upon others whether wanted or not, who are the problem (and who are often the subjects of RW articles). Anna Livia (talk) 15:05, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure. There is value in subjective observation and interpretation for navigating a human life.  But that's clearly not the case he's making.  He's positioning that methodological empiricism comes to false or wrong conclusions about the things its the best equipped method to interpret, simply on virtue of conflicting with his intuitions.  It's nuts.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:34, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


 * @Ikanreed. Then it's not so bad as a Fundy who I picked up who after being angry at the desires of UK scientists to forbid the teaching of creationism at schools confounded evolution with abiogenesis, claimed that "evolutionism" was a pseudoscience that most scientists no longer support, and that abiogenesis is impossible due to the sheer improbability of forming complex organic molecules. This combined with Hawking/Dawkins having claimed creationism to be real, evolutionim = no morality = no belief in a personal God first and in a creator God later, replaced with "billions of casualties", citing Pasteur as this shown spontaneus generation is impossible, and more PRATTs like the "perfect" structure of the eye and the mess in the fossil sequence caused by the Flood, and evolution being bollocks due to frauds as the man of Piltdown (you get the idea, I'll not waste electrons)


 * The best was when he began to talk about a gene that causes people to believe in God, mixing it with NWO BS and the Book of Revelation, ending inviting people to accept Jesus (etc). The very best was that only at the end the asshole admitted not to have scientific formation at all. Panzerfaust (talk) 00:00, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Face facts: science sucks (there, I alliterated.) Before science there was the poet. In the beginning was the Word. All things were made by him (the Word; maybe this War on Pronouns can bring some people to the Light). nobspiss in my ear 03:57, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The best nobs interactions are the ones where you can't even tell what he's trying to say. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 04:14, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * As I said before in all seriousness and with actual concern, Nobs should seek mental health care. (word salad) could be a symptom of different mental illnesses. Bongolian (talk) 04:41, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You wanna know where did we come from and why do we exist? That's easy. The poet spoke the world into existence. Read WP's poetry entry, it's very good (I could do better). Better still, check out, "the activity in which a person brings something into being that did not exist before." The poet created the world. Science is just observation, and chasing after wind. A rock laying on the sea shore would still exist with or without the scientist, yet they can't figure out the poet created it.
 * Take rappers, for example. They're not just entertainers, they are creating a whole new world. You wanna fix global warming? Science can't do it, but the poet can. nobspiss in my ear 11:55, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * @RobSmith That makes no sense. Science is the only solution to global warming, poets can't create green energy, they can't warn us about the temp rise science can.

Science 2.0 is a MASSIVE joke still
Science 2.0 is going to debate MCToon on February 6. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXmBl4W_RFo Tell him to f off.

What's this all about? A troll?
 * 77.111.247.10 (talk) 09:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Just thought you might like to know. I'm not LogicNSuch. But Science 2.0 IS set to debate MCToon. That's a true thing. Fiddleit (talk) 15:28, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * You're a bad troll. Get the Hell out. Guffer (talk) 02:33, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Is User:Guffer Logicnsuch?
,, , and ,

Take note of the style of the statements on these user pages and at the top of their talk pages. And now we have:
 * User:Logicnsuch:
 * User talk:Logicnsuch:
 * 🧦 User:Logicnsuchreborn:
 * 🧦 User talk:Logicnsuchreborn:
 * 🧦 User:Psychiclie:
 * 🧦 User talk:Psychiclie:
 * 🧦 User:Willthenut:
 * 🧦 User talk:Willthenut:
 * 🧦 User:Fiddleit:
 * 🧦 User talk:Fiddleit:
 * 🧦 User:Guffer:
 * 🧦 User talk:Guffer:

Other behavior: This is the best idea I can think of that's more creative than just voting against Trump. All the members of the caravan go to a Trump rally, insisting that they're ardent supporters of Trump. Then, they all sit right behind his podium, and at a predetermined time, all of them jump at once on top of him, 100,000 or so Hispanic migrants in unison, they just leap as one big heap onto him, and they don't hit him or kick him or anything, they just get on top of him and lie down, and he can't do anything until they get off of him, and the Secret Service isn't able to dig him out. This is how it works: if two nations choose to engage in a squabble because their Political Ideologies are too different, and compromise or peace is unattainable, then the two nations are given a fair and just trial, much like a Public trial. a Committee of 25 delegates from 25 randomly selected countries are invited to attend, and decide who wins. The Countries are given a simple set of questions, mainly questions dealing with poverty levels, gun laws, rate of human suffering, prison population, environmental status, yearly death rate, Leadership system, etc. The 25 countries then vote on which country is superior to the other based on the simple criteria above.
 * Having very enlightened political views
 * Edit-warring
 * One, two. The content inserted was as intelligent as ever.

On January 14, Trump ordered an entire table of fast food for the Clemson Tigers. The incident sparked extreme outrage and laughs, particularly from the fact that Trump referred to hamburgers as "Hamberders" in classic tweet fashion. The incident also confirmed suspicions that Trump has no taste in food.
 * General silliness
 * "I have a strange vision." Indeed, stranger than 's existential fluff.

I have a strange idea. It's the music video for Thriller, except instead of Michael Jackson, it's Hitler, and instead of Ola Ray, it's Eva Braun. Why do I see this? What does it mean? Is it a good idea, or is it stupid?
 * Sustained interest in highly relevant YouTube channels like "Science 2.0"
 * Guffer removed the above  templates to attract attention.


 * Feigning anger by calling Fiddleit a troll after Fiddleit was blocked
 * Guffer, 23:32, 17 January 2019:
 * Guffer, 02:33, 18 January 2019:
 * Compare this with Fiddleit feigning ignorance after Willthenut was blocked.
 * Fiddleit, 21:43, 3 January 2019:

77.111.246.154 (talk) 10:02, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Probably Guffer is Logicnsuch, but there no real harm in leaving him a bit longer just in case he isn't. 10:58, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No idea. All I know is, you guys oughta quit being so paranoid. Guffer (talk) 18:16, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Anti-vaxxers now a top threat to global health
That's how bad this shit has gotten. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 14:23, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I thought we'd turned the corner on anti-vax, but that report says 2018 was a record year for refusal and hesitancy. So all that has happened is I'm not personally being exposed to the nutters anymore.  Fuck.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:45, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This whole thing is why I believe we need to take some sort of legitimate action. If you don't vaccinate your kids, even for religious reasons, they should be taken away. You are refusing them medical care, putting them and others in danger. It's really textbook child abuse.An ordinary human man (talk) 16:59, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Allowing your children to come to harm through failure to act is textbook neglect, not abuse. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:01, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * To what extent is the problem - there comes a point at which many people have not come across persons who have been seriously/negatively affected by 'the once usual childhood diseases? Anna Livia (talk) 17:33, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Jennymccarthybodycount stopped updating in 2015, sadly. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:05, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That's interesting because the WHO has also recently promoted anti-science with herbal medicine, and herbal medicine has been treated as a vaccination alternative by some. WHO has even promoted the deadly Aristolochia in Ayurvedic medicine as recently as 2010. Are these two branches of WHO with conflicting strategies, or a case of institutional cognitive dissonance? Bongolian (talk) 20:36, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's a problem with some particular people on the board, because this reminds me of how EPA used to be nice and dandy but Trump appointed some brain parasites and now it's acting like it's been infected by such. Anyhow, this is part of the ongoing development of integrative medicine creeping into mainstream medicine like kudzu plants, as we've seen with a lot of major health departments starting to promote the practices or even sell the damn things. As for World Health Organization, it's been going on for a little while. As for LeftyGreenMario, it makes me want to vomit. Alternative medicine, integrative medicine, complementary medicine, whatever, they have only one place and that's deep in a landfill. 22:58, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Is my comment being replied to, or are there tangled threads? Most of us will never encounter someone affected by polio (FDR is 'a historic person'), see even a smallpox vaccination scar (unless in 'particular medical or archaeological environments) etc, or will have the attitude 'unless you are visiting places where specific diseases are rife, you will not come into contact with anything nasty' - apart from the winter flu jab (if appropriate). Anna Livia (talk) 12:44, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Sucks about this insular anti-vax community suddenly having an outbreak of an otherwise mostly eradicated disease ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Shaving
Gillette decided to lecture their customers about "toxic masculinity" Thinker(unlicensed) 17:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Video not particularly noteworthy; corporations asserting conventional moral positions for the time as a way of creating a false sense of respect has been incredibly common for decades now. Everyone angry about it is somehow simultaneous with eachother the dumbest fucker possible.  Yes I mean you. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:26, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You are a moron. Everyone who is losing their crap over this commercial is a fucking moron. This whole "controversy" is as stupid and overhyped as the time Starbucks used plain red cups. This is a fucking non-issue. 17:31, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Gotta love the science behind it. Naturally generated testosterone produces anti-social behavior. Hey, come to think of it, isn't this related the Rationalwiki's Mission Statement? Bet a $100 no RW editor will pursue it, and I can't cause I'll get blocked. And some stupid fuck just put in my bio that I'm not committed to RW's Mission. nobspiss in my ear 04:37, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * To me it's funny how conservative culture, a culture that supposedly glorifies past values, often seems to ignore that old school concept of "being a gentleman". Just saying. Soundwave106 (talk) 15:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course right-wing fundies will take message such as "bullying and rape are bad" as an attack on masculinity. Oh, and toxic masculinity doesn't mean "males are toxic". Diacelium, but without an account 82.66.175.16 (talk) 17:39, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * At this point I wonder if these kinds of misunderstandings are them being that dumb, or whether they purposefully choose not to understand what very modestly left ideas mean. I put it on Fun:Predictions as a joke but maybe I should take it more seriously as a prediction, "By the year 2168(2169 at the latest), the English language will have split, not on physical boundaries but ideology, and no one will understand anything said by people they disagree with."  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:02, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * As someone who was raised right-wing, I can say yes; they are that dumb and often just misunderstanding it. Problem is, they stubbornly insist that they know what they 'really want', and often stray into the camp of the willfully ignorant.  They are masters at ignoring anything anyone not on their side says.  If you present yourself as rightwing, they will listen to you and even agree with you.  Say you are left wing, and they instantly change their views 180 because they are indoctrinated into reflexively rejecting anything of the 'left'.  MirrorIrorriM (talk) 18:19, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Best moments: LOL Thinker(unlicensed) 19:18, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * A tv show with a white man grabbing the bottom of a black housekeeper and making fun of her in front of a laughing audience, because that's a real thing.
 * A man boss mansplaining to a woman employee and a close-up of her suffering, because bosses notoriously don't have the last word in a meeting.
 * Two dads not caring about their children fighting in the garden, because overprotective parents are not something from these days.
 * Ana Kasparian!
 * Random middle east man saving poor girl from fat white man telling her "smile, sweetie!"
 * Random black man stopping a white man to commit what probably would be a daylight street rape.
 * The most tenacious bullies ever.
 * Black guy making peace between young black boy without hood and young black boys with hoods.
 * You know how I said you were the dumbest fucker possible? Stop being the dumbest fucker possible, please.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:24, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "You know how I said you were the dumbest fucker possible?" Keep saying it, if it makes you feel better. I have already replied: "What's the purpose of this kind of comments? They don't offend me, and they make you look like you have no arguments." Thinker(unlicensed) 21:54, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You see the idiot in the red hat? Yeah, that's what you sound like right now. You don't like the commercial? DON'T BUY THE MOTHERFUCVKING PRODUCT YOU CUNTLICKER!!! That's how fucking capitalism, or really any economy works. Companies market to the majority, and currently the majority is a bunch of people that want social progress. Give right-wingers enough time and they'll play 1950s style ads again. Why? Because the company DOESN'T GIVE FUCK ABOUT ANYTHING OUTSIDE OF PROFITS!!! HOW MANY FUCKING TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY THIS BEFORE YOU DIPSHITS GET IT?!?!?! THEY. DO. NOT. CARE. ABOUT. ANYTHING. OTHER. THAN. MONEY!!! OK? OK!!! Stop talking like an idiot now.  22:16, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You know, that's a whole lot of being the dumbest fucker possible, and not much stopping being the dumbest fucker possible. I asked so politely.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 22:18, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Calm down guys, please. You can keep your arguments, but tone down a notch on insulting ("cuntlicker", really!?) and the all-caps. 22:46, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "You don't like the commercial? DON'T BUY THE MOTHERFUCVKING PRODUCT YOU CUNTLICKER!!!"
 * Who said I don't like the commercial? I think it's hilarious! That's why I made a list of "Best moments". Of course I have my criticisms of the message and especially how it's been delivered, but that's not gonna make me all caps-insane like someone else... Thinker(unlicensed) 08:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm just a BoN, but GrammarCommie, but "You don't like the commercial? DON'T BUY THE MOTHERFUCVKING PRODUCT" would also apply to a bunch of ads for alternative medecine products RW do have a page for on this wiki. This ad clearly base itself in an ideology, some people have reserves with the ideology it spreads, regardless of their intention to buy the product or not. Usually RW is those people.109.205.5.33 (talk) 08:36, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Let me put this in terms you'll understand. Gillette is a bunch of Mercenaries. That means they'll fly whichever flag makes them the most money this week. So when you bash that commercial, all you're doing is spreading the memetic word virus that is their media campaign and selling their products for them. That would be why I called you an idiot right out of the gate. That would be why I lost my temper after you went "The commercial said this!! Yuk yuk!!" There is only so many times you can completely miss the point before I lose my temper. The content of the commercial is ultimately irrelevant next to the larger problem of corporations dictating ideologies for profit. To put it more blunt terms, as well as an argumentum ad absurdem, they would air a commercial showing someone whipping a child with a (Gillette) razor studded bullwhip if their charts and analysts said that what people liked. This is nothing more than a (successful) media campaign designed to psychologically manipulate people into repeating the brand name ad nausem, thus increasing the chance that someone will buy their product. Congrats on falling for it. 13:39, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "Let me put this in terms you'll understand."
 * That's not the best way to start a conversation
 * "So when you bash that commercial, all you're doing is spreading the memetic word virus that is their media campaign and selling their products for them."
 * Even assuming that's true: So what? I don't care how many Gillette's are sold. (Or maybe I secretly work for Gillette... Mua haha haha...)
 * "after you went "The commercial said this!! Yuk yuk!!""
 * I never said that, it's not even a paraphrase.
 * "There is only so many times you can completely miss the point before I lose my temper."
 * That's your problem. Pull yourself together and stop losing your temper because of strangers on the Internet.
 * "The content of the commercial is ultimately irrelevant next to the larger problem of corporations dictating ideologies for profit."
 * Which is in turn irrelevant next to the larger problem of the heat death of the universe. See? I can play this game too!
 * "they would air a commercial showing someone whipping a child with a (Gillette) razor studded bullwhip if their charts and analysts said that what people liked."
 * ...and people should say nothing about that?
 * "This is nothing more than a (successful) media campaign designed to psychologically manipulate people into repeating the brand name ad nausem, thus increasing the chance that someone will buy their product. Congrats on falling for it."
 * Thanks. I had fun for free, I wish media campaign was always this way!
 * Ah you forgot to reply to the noteworthy objection of 109.205.5.33 to you screaming "DON'T BUY THE MOTHERFUCVKING PRODUCT". Thinker(unlicensed) 14:42, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Fuck this shit and fuck your concern trolling. I'm fucking done with this shit. I'm gone. Believe whatever delusion make you happy, ignore corporate greed undermining any value behind ideas. Whatever, I don't fucking care anymore. You don't like social progress, big woop. Social progress is the reason you can bitch about social progress via this thing called technology. Tone police someone else, I'm out. 15:54, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Backtracking somewhat - a case of it never being too early in the year to start fighting the war against the war against Christmas.

If 'the companies' promote peace and cooperation across borders/between communities and reduced tariff barriers because it is good for their business what is there to object? And - adverts can backfire (no citations needed) - sometimes simply because 'they are all over the place and that annoys people.' Anna Livia (talk) 15:16, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

BoN: The key difference is that while Gilette engaged in a publicity stunt, those alternative medicine we talk about can scam people and dupe them and ultimately harm them, and they remain relevant far beyond publicity stunts, very unlike memes like this one. I just dont see value in documenting what the latest outrage is about compared to documenting ongoing alternative medicine. Remember, alternative medicine has snuck into otherwise science based organizations such as WHO and hospitals and academia. Alt med promoters are con artists and hide behind a sheet of legitimatacy while Gilette just likes publicity. Anyhow, that's the difference in how the "don't like x, don't engage in it" should be applied. 19:07, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I am lukewarm to social justice and I think that getting mad over this commercial is a waste of everyone's time. Commie Lib (talk) 20:53, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Best non-violent way to stop Trump (Besides just not voting for him)
This is a fun thought experiment. How would you stop Trump best in a non-violent way? Guffer (talk) 17:16, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You don't just treat symptoms, especially when the illness is this close to terminal. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:23, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This is stupid. How do you disagree with any politician? DON'T VOTE FOR THEM!!! There, done. 17:26, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Say he's already President, how do you keep him from making any stupid decisions without using force, per se? Guffer (talk)
 * Are you such an ignorant dunkolf that you can't figure this out on your own? Read the news, see all those people that oppose Trump without using violence? Yeah them, do that. 17:36, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Innovative/constructive use of no-platforming and similar? Anna Livia (talk) 18:37, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Offer him a tv show with a lucrative merchandising contract. "Bloviating Half-Wits at sea." Shove him on a boat and cast him adrift. Cardinal Chang (talk) 19:57, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I like that one. But my advice is don't vote Republican whenever you get the opportunity. 20:30, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

The deck is stacked against Democrats due to 1) how the Senate is elected (California gets 2 Senators as does North Dakota; San Francisco has more people thank all of ND), and 2) active and widespread voter suppression by Republicans. Part of Democrats' strategy needs to be to cross state lines and support Democratic candidates in other states. Bongolian (talk) 21:24, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what I can do as an individual, but I just don't vote Republican. Normally, I think it's bad to vote on party lines, but Republicans have collectively allowed and enabled Trump as well as stand by or even support voter suppression and actual election fraud and manipulation, so I can't trust any of them. They get more power, they have more ability to do this. 21:33, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This is the best idea I can think of that's more creative than just voting against Trump. All the members of the caravan go to a Trump rally, insisting that they're ardent supporters of Trump. Then, they all sit right behind his podium, and at a predetermined time, all of them jump at once on top of him, 100,000 or so Hispanic migrants in unison, they just leap as one big heap onto him, and they don't hit him or kick him or anything, they just get on top of him and lie down, and he can't do anything until they get off of him, and the Secret Service isn't able to dig him out. Guffer (talk) 21:53, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Or... hear me out, YOU DON'T FUCKING ASSAULT THE POTUS, WHO HAS 24-7 SECURITY ARMED WITH FUCKING GUNS YOU STUPID IGNORANT TWIT!!!!! I'm already half convinced you're a fucking sealion, and a very particular (Banned) Sealion at that. You want to prove me right and get blocked forever? 22:01, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That's enough with the all-caps. You should know that it's disruptive, and I know where this conversation is going. I think you made your point, you should just drop out. 22:49, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 100,000 or so Hispanic migrants in unison, they just leap as one big heap onto him Yeah, I'm sure they'll be completely unnoticed beforehand. Excellent plan. (Also, I agree with LGM. Stop the all capping, please.) 22:50, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You don't want to be the new Kingdamian1. 22:51, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * See, some of the pile might get shot, but it's still non-violent and Trump isn't hurt at all, he's just covered by immigrants. The Secret Service can't stop 100,000 people who all jump on at once. See, this relies on a bunch of people choosing to jump, so the WHOLE caravan sneaks into a Trump Rally and sits behind him, and, you know, they can't refuse all these Hispanic people or they'd appear Racist, which trump insists he's not... so they let the whole Caravan in and they sit behind Trump, and then, in one second, they all jump onto Trump. No violence, they just jump out of their seats and land on Trump. Some may get shot in midair, but when it's found that Trump hasn't been harmed, the Secret Service will look bad and so will Trump. It's a win-win, non-violent method! Guffer (talk) 22:53, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a joke, right? 23:34, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sealioning- this is just a fun thought experiment. I guess I should have specified that "just not voting for him" isn't an option. Guffer (talk) 23:16, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Physically restraining someone's freedom of movement is non-violent. Spoken like true Leftist. nobspiss in my ear 04:49, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Rob, you do realize that Guffer is likely a troll right? As in they're full of crap by default... Sometimes I worry about people like you... 05:01, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That doesn't nullify the validity of the statement. nobspiss in my ear 12:43, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes it does... That's kind of how trolls work. 13:41, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not a troll...I have no idea what you're talking about. This is just a fun thought experiment. Guffer (talk) 18:13, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Psychopathology of Adolf Hitler
I know a psychiatric diagnosis for a dead guy would be damn near impossible but what psychiatric disorder do you think Hitler had? I do know many psychiatrists have done research into the subject.

This does not absolve Hitler of his actions --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:10, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This kind of discussion is a very, very bad idea. Mental health diagnoses are already heavily stigmatized. Neuro-typical people are capable of terrible things, period, we don't need to play games of attaching disorders (that many good people have too) to them to categorize them as part of the handicapped. It's way too easy to go "Hitler was evil but at least he's not one of US and only one of THOSE people". No. 01:58, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


 * According to a psychoanalytical assessment made by US intelliegnce during the war, Hitler suffered from . This assessment probably did more damage to science than good, being that there's a 50% chance it was fake news and propaganda, and showed a willingness of alleged scientific experts to depart from accepted scientific methodology and prostitute themselves in an ideological cause. nobspiss in my ear 05:00, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


 * The whole "this horrible person was " thing basically pins people with as being equivalent to that horrible person. it's the same reason it's ultimately harmful to say "oh this horrible person is secretly gay" or "Nazis aren't people" or w/e. It doesn't do anything helpful and only serves to absolve your guilt rather than recognize that people, straight people, and neurotypical people can and (proportionally more often) are responsible for harm.
 * An armchair diagnosis doesn't absolve Hitler but does pass the buck onto neuroatypical people, you know, those who were, among others, targeted for extermination under the Third Reich. As such, I say that Hitler had the psychiatric disorder of being a neurotypical patriarchically-authoritarian conservative cishet white male.
 * Y'all can keep him. Stop trying to blame us for you killing us. Transbeeism (talk) 05:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * And it's not just Nazis that target neuroatypical people. When eugenics was popular, people from US and Europe mass forced sterilized them as criteria included alcoholics and "crazy" people. 05:57, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "what psychiatric disorder do you think Hitler had?"
 * That's a captious question, because it implicitly assume that Hitler had a psychiatric disorder. Like asking: "Who did create the universe?" is a captious question, because it implicitly assumes that somebody created the universe.
 * "This kind of discussion is a very, very bad idea. Mental health diagnoses are already heavily stigmatized."
 * That's a faulty kind of reasoning too. Instead of focusing on the question, you think about the implications of a possible answer, and you conclude that is better not to have this discussion, a sort of . Thinker(unlicensed) 08:44, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Hitler's insanity was more related to inbreeding. The family had a long history of marrying cousins rather than intermarry with Slavs. Hitler's mother was his father's neice, and Hitler was screwing his own neice, Geli Raubel. nobspiss in my ear 12:23, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that the nominal fallacy is involved in this problem. The fallacy is that, by naming the disorder attributed to Hitler, we might then know something that we previously did not know about how the crimes of Hitler are explained by his disorder. Psychiatric taxonomy has no such utility.Ariel31459 (talk) 16:23, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I blame Hitler's psychopathology entirely on his vegetarianism. OTOH, he persuaded a nation of hundreds of millions of people to go along for his ride.  He couldn't have been that crazy. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 16:59, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I was wondering what drives a guy to that level of insanity. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:03, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I find it comforting to realize that Hitler was well within normal human capabilities and mental functionality. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 17:05, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "I was wondering what drives a guy to that level of insanity." It has been already pointed out by me and that the main question of your thread is based on some fallacies. Why are you ignoring that? Thinker(unlicensed) 17:40, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * UnlicensedThinker: The point here is not to engage in armchair psychology as Rationalzombie94 is asking us to do. You are likely wrong whatever you guess because you just look at symptoms and then assign a label when psychiatry requires far more information. You then can and will jump to the wrong conclusions based on premises that require expertise and competence which we just don't have  unless any of us are practicing psychiatrists (even then, they have to work from limited information!) including him as not neurotypical and therefore not capable of heinous actions, or that's the implications. This is on top of the hostility and marginalization of people with mental health disorders and just dismissing that neurotypical people have problems and are capable of atrocious acts.  18:37, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with you last post. Said so, you did not reply to what I said to you in my previous post. Thinker(unlicensed) 19:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe I did reply. Yes, I resorted to appeal to a consequence, but my next post was also explaining the serious flaws of the simple task of affixing disorders to people, that task in of itself is highly prone to errors because none of us are even trained in the fields, and even psychiatrists can't form a confident conclusion because they don't know Hitler's personal records and all. Beyond this, then, are the terrible implications which are terrible on part because of ignorance. It plays hand in hand. So, it's a thoroughly bad idea from start to finish, rationally and morally. 19:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "I believe I did reply."
 * You didn't. Let's break it down: In essence, I said that "not having a discussion on a question Q because of the bad social implications of a possible answer to Q is faulty reasoning." Do you agree or disagree? And Why? Thinker(unlicensed) 20:22, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with that, and that's why I went further by completing the argument with saying that it's wrong to begin with. This is going off topic. 20:29, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "I agree with that" OK, good then Thinker(unlicensed) 20:34, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

This is my answer- he must have had a unique illness, some one-in-a-million condition that nobody before him had and nobody will ever have again. This is why it's so hard to think about why he was how he was. Because he was so insane he was like no other member of Humanity. Guffer (talk) 21:59, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Remember when Rosanne took and ambien and then acted like a dipshit? And when ambien responded with "there are some side effects to taking abien though racism is not one of them". I am pretty sure that genocide is not an inherent quality of psychological problems. maybe...oh just maybe...someone is overreaching here? like trying to to use a tree branch on earth to write their name on the moon. big distance. very little stick. no is possible Shabi  DOO  10:30, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * a focus on hitlers mental health is kind of a lazy get out of jail free card for humanity. its easy to shift blame on a handful of individuals from the actions of a population at large, who needed to be complicit in the awful crimes of the nazis. so what if hitler was sane or if he speeding his tits of the whole time? it doesnt explain the actions of people manning gas chambers. see adolf eichmann and the banality of evil. we gain nothing from spurious assessments of hitlers mental state when we ignore the basic fact that, proved time and time again, we all have potential to do some truly horrendous things AMassiveGay (talk) 22:43, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I have a strange vision.
I have a strange idea. It's the music video for Thriller, except instead of Michael Jackson, it's Hitler, and instead of Ola Ray, it's Eva Braun. Why do I see this? What does it mean? Is it a good idea, or is it stupid? Guffer (talk) 01:35, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I imagine it is because that song is kinda dark, and Micheal Jackson was kinda evil. It associates. 19:49, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed above, but it's also stupid, it's a bad idea. Edit: which means people will probably love it, don't worry about me getting tired of a meme before I see it.Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:17, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Sixteen Tons
Sadly still relevant to this day. —  Ɖøn Ĵuan  Harass  20:16, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The Federal government currently has 3 different lawsuits against it by federal workers who are not being paid, including 1 lawsuit by workers forced to work without pay that cites the Thirteenth Amendment ("involuntary servitude"), the anti-slavery amendment. So much for "dignity of the paycheck" Republicans. Bongolian (talk) 00:08, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Meanwhile the fucks in the White House and Congress get six digit salaries while the backbone of the federal government are left to rot in debt. —  Ɖøn Ĵuan  Harass  14:55, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Fuck these godless civil servants, servants of Satan. Is that the only thing that motivates them, the God Almighty dollar? Greedy bastards. nobspiss in my ear 04:04, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * In 2007, Speaker Pelosi the Democrat leader refused to pay the troops risking their lives for America. What? Does the stupid bitch think we don't remember that? Pelosi don't give a fuck about anything other than loosing a grip on power. nobspiss in my ear 04:12, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Bongolian (talk) 04:28, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Nobs should really put down the crack pipe. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 16:39, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Hostility
At the beginning of RationalWiki:Community_Standards it is written:

We prefer and encourage that users and editors become a part of the community. We encourage everyone to join in, be bold, and engage in sensible debate, but expect them to do so without resorting to vandalizing articles or harassing other users.

However, recently I noticed that just mentioning certain topics resorts in some users immediately starting to insult you and even blocking you (apparently, against the community rules). Especially, instead of the, some users start to insult you not because of something you have said, but because of something they suppose you think.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not offended by the insults. Actually, I find them extremely childish. But how one is supposed to engage in sensible debates, if he has to scroll down through text walls of all caps and insults?

Thinker(unlicensed) 18:19, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Certain topics? Some users? Be specific. Also, we operate on mob mentality. Everyone has sysop powers. Some people might block you, but others might want to unblock you. As for civility, the rules are very loose. We keep trying to encourage more civility, but the mob says no, so I don't know, just listen to the argument rather than focus on the insults of you're part of the crossfire. 18:51, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * They're referring to me, in an underhanded and roundabout way. To the OP fuck you, shooting someone in the back after they throw up their hands and leave is cowardly bullcrap. Maybe the problem isn't that certain topics are taboo, maybe you're just an asshole with shitty opinions. Fucking tone troll... 18:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I say more of constantly missing the point and engaging in weasel words as above, which gives impression of concern trolling. 18:58, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If you didn't invoke the concept of "sensible debate" while doing nothing of the sort, I'd feel so much more sympathy for your case. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:02, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


 * "Certain topics? Some users? Be specific." For example here and here.


 * "just listen to the argument" Argument? What argument do you see here, here, or here?


 * "Also, we operate on mob mentality." What about when "mob mentality" goes against RationalWiki:Community_Standards? Thinker(unlicensed) 19:15, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Two of those were when ikanreed already decided to disengage with you. GrammarCommie had an argument there being "this is a nonissue" and providing an example why so. The two topics you listed really referred to one, being the Gilette thing and you getting blocked then unblocked for it.
 * That's where I tell people to cool it, which has worked to an extent. I think GrammarCommie listens to me. 19:20, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "Two of those were when ikanreed already decided to disengage with you."
 * So, for example, if I decide to disengage with you, then I can reply to each of your posts with "Stop being the dumbest fucker possible, please" and that would be OK with the community standards?
 * "GrammarCommie had an argument there being "this is a nonissue" and providing an example why so."
 * First, GrammarCommie replied to something I never said, that is, that the spot was controversial. Second, he did not provide an example why the Gillette spot was a not an issue, he provided an example of another thing which was not an issue. Saying "X is as stupid and overhyped as the time Y" it's not an explanation of why X is a non-issue.
 * "That's where I tell people to cool it, which has worked to an extent. I think GrammarCommie listens to me."
 * Are you kidding? He just wrote "To the OP fuck you ... maybe you're just an asshole with shitty opinions. Fucking tone troll..." Thinker(unlicensed) 19:37, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm prepared to go to my permaban grave on the grounds that, yes, you were being the dumbest fucker possible, and the whole of the substantive reply you required was contained in "Video not particularly noteworthy; corporations asserting conventional moral positions for the time as a way of creating a false sense of respect has been incredibly common for decades now. Everyone angry about it is somehow simultaneous with eachother the dumbest fucker possible. Yes I mean you."
 * It's not noteworthy as a problem, nothing special happened. It's as inoffensive as Dove doing the dumbass "everyone is beautiful" ads, or car commercials pretending to care about the safety of your family.  Trivial and typical attempts to tie a sense of morality to their products.  It's only notable to you because your brain has been melted by right wing ideology and think "toxic masculinity" as a concept was made up whole cloth.  Which makes you a real goddamn dumb fucker.  You want an argument?  Assert an actual position, rather than boarding the latest mindless rage train with a bunch of dumbasses.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Rude words is fine, bad attitude is not. Blocking GrammarCommie would be a pointless waste of time at best, no matter what he says, largely also so with ikanread. I am a major proponent to better community conduct, but by all means carry on the flame war. :D 19:57, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Politeness serves a function and has a place and time. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:04, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "Everyone angry about it is somehow simultaneous with eachother the dumbest fucker possible. Yes I mean you.""
 * ...and where did I say a was angry about the spot? Nowhere. As I said at the beginning of the thread, you are insulting me for something you suppose I think.
 * "your brain has been melted by right wing ideology and think "toxic masculinity" as a concept was made up whole cloth."
 * Again, I never expressed an opinion about "toxic masculinity"
 * "You want an argument? Assert an actual position"
 * I'd love to, but it's kinda difficult since you are already attaching to me several positions I never asserted. I'm totally able to have a rational conversation on the topic with you (in a different thread), but that requires that you stop replying to things I never said, insulting me, and labelling me with political positions (by the way, things I never did when confronting you). Otherwise it's just impossible. Thinker(unlicensed) 20:14, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Buddy, you were pissed as hell about it. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:19, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You didn't explicitly say anything about the concept of toxic masculinity, but the language in "Gillette decided to lecture their customers about 'toxic masculinity'" tells me a lot about your position, intended or not, particularly the air quotes and the word choice "lecture". 20:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "Buddy, you were pissed as hell about it" Evidences?
 * "tells me a lot about your position"
 * Does it tell you anything about me which I was accused later? Thinker(unlicensed) 20:32, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you're being weirdly dodgy about things. 20:33, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You wouldn't have gone to the effort of posting the video on the bar, then in a subsequent post, listing each and every moment you didn't like if you weren't in some way offended by it. 20:36, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * (ECx2)Stop demanding evidence for obvious things. Stop demanding comprehensive argument about banal points.  Neither is clever.  It's particularly galling to do so after LGM gave perfectly reasonable examples of how anyone could intuit it.  I've said it before, and I'll say it again, I don't respect the intellectually dishonest.  Own your positions, don't do some dumbass motte and bailey over dumbass right wing culture war garbage.  The fact that you could be better than this, but explicitly choose not to be is exactly what warranted the original condescension you objected to.  The direction of this conversation was obvious from post zero.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:42, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Guys, you all make a lot of suppositions...
 * "listing each and every moment you didn't like"
 * Never said I didn't like them, I actually called them "Best moments" (without quotation marks).
 * "you didn't like if you weren't in some way offended by it."
 * I wrote that list laughing (especially the tenacious bullies and hood parts). I even put a LOL at the end...
 * "Stop demanding evidence for obvious things."
 * Translation: "Stop demanding evidence that I cannot provide" What are you? A religious leader?
 * "I've said it before, and I'll say it again, I don't respect the intellectually dishonest. Own your positions"
 * I have already said that I'm totally fine and I'd love to debate toxic masculinity as soon as you stop accusing me from things I never said. The one who's refraining from that is you. Thinker(unlicensed) 20:55, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Weellllll, at least you didn't go "my language and air quotes mean nothing, you make things up". 21:00, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Never said I didn't like them, I actually called them "Best moments" (without quotation marks). You're either joking or you're actually dumber than I thought. Regardless, you're obviously looking either cheap entertainment or a flock of ignorant children to tell you how clever you are. Either way, you're in the wrong place. 21:02, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Every reply in this conversation is another step down the "if I'm slightly more pedantic about this it means I win" trail. This isn't a debate about empiricism or the validity of methods, it's about the simple human intuition of intent from words. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:09, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You worded that better than I could've. 21:13, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * ...and of course you ignored "I have already said that I'm totally fine and I'd love to debate toxic masculinity as soon as you stop accusing me from things I never said. The one who's refraining from that is you." and now you will explain why you cannot debate with me without resorting to strawmen and insults... but I gotta go to work, bye Thinker(unlicensed) 21:23, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Tragic. Think of all the pedantry and quibbling I'm missing.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:34, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I am reminded of a missionary wandering into a tribe of cannibals. At least the cannibals were amused.Ariel31459 (talk) 03:16, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

You never answered the following questions:

(a) What about when "mob mentality" goes against RationalWiki:Community_Standards?

(b) So, for example, if I decide to disengage with you, then I can reply to each of your posts with "Stop being the dumbest fucker possible, please" and that would be OK with the community standards? Thinker(unlicensed) 08:43, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You're being weirdly dodgy and stuff, as I've noticed from you. Getting the reaction you are having is expected, as we don't like when people are perceived to not have intellectual honesty. 19:30, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You talk of intellectual honesty and you keep ignoring my questions. Especially question (a), which is nothing particularly strange to ask, since you are a moderator and its absolutely legit that an user ask to you how "mob mentality" and community standards work here. Whatever... Thinker(unlicensed) 22:06, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Since we've strayed from the topic
Dumb ideas can and will be dismissed out of hand as dumb ideas. Intellectual dishonesty, sealioning, and attempts to offend will be met with hostility. That's just a fact of life here. 20:41, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * There's an exception, if you purposefully set up a debate knowing and allowing for the fact that its central subject is dumb in advance we fucking love it. Set up a debate on which poptart flavor is better, when we all know they all taste like corn syrup?  That will get legit debate.  It's like the "hotdog=sandwhich?" all in good fun.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:46, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * A hot dog is not a sandwich. 20:53, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it's a sandwich. I also like pineapples on pizza. 21:00, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm calling the Inquisition. 21:12, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm calling for a pineapple pizza to be delivered. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:14, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I think we call pineapple pizza "pineapple pie" at this point. 22:17, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Pineapple on pizza is sacrilege. Sweet sinful sacrilege. Also, hotdog sandwiches are a thing in Australia, kinda. Aul sausage sizzles are great with a tin of VB Cardinal Chang (talk) 22:46, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd go to hell for Pineapple Pizza regardless if its sinful. 23:21, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

No...that's nonsense Unlicensedthinker. it's true there are a few overreactions but in general...the users who face hostility are almost always one kind of troll or another (too frequently concern trolls) and have posted other super stupid shit before numerous times. I don't think most of them are actually interesting in joining the community or "having a dialogue" but instead doing everything to get a reaction out to us (which we normally serve them). If someone in the street insisted that your great-great-grandparents are now zombies walking around Australia night and day and you're a stupid leftist asshole if you don't believe me, I really don't know how many people would bother "engaging in a dialogue" with the guy. if there were any reaction it would be finding a mental-health clinic for the person or if they're relatively sane...laughing and returning the jibes. Shabi DOO  10:38, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

It is paradoxical that people who want the world to be a better place have little or no interest in applying strict standards to their own behavior. Can we be blamed for our human nature? Try doing something useful. Edit an article. Someone will disagree, saying they think you are dumb as a basket of rocks ( not the smart kind). Get over it and try again. Don't waste your time with insipid, provocative comments. Please do something interesting.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:26, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "It is paradoxical that people who want the world to be a better place have little or no interest in applying strict standards to their own behavior."
 * This sounds a perfect comment for GC and ikanreed
 * "Edit an article."
 * I already did
 * "Don't waste your time with insipid, provocative comments."
 * Man... I'm the one saying that insults and strawmen are destructive
 * "Please do something interesting."
 * This ("I'm totally fine and I'd love to debate toxic masculinity...") would be interesting, but it has been repetitively ignored. Thinker(unlicensed) 17:50, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Get over it and try again. Do something else that is interesting. Don't expect a debate. Actually, you should avoid debates. Stick to facts that are not debatable. Don't be distracted by the affects of this wiki. Ariel31459 (talk) 18:11, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "Don't expect a debate"
 * From RationalWiki:Constructive dialogue: "We here at RationalWiki always welcome those who disagree with points of view presented here to discuss their disagreement with us..." Thinker(unlicensed) 18:50, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Our hypocrisy is one of our least novel characteristics. What is your point? Did I tell you to get over it yet?Ariel31459 (talk) 19:17, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * We also don't like sea lions. 19:30, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "Our hypocrisy is one of our least novel characteristics." :-| Thinker(unlicensed) 22:06, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Ehhhhh, Ariel has negative experience with ikanreed too, just some background. 22:07, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * But he's a great guy once you get to know him. Let me add, since you brought it up, "toxic masculinity" is sort of a buzz-word. There is no article in this wiki on the topic. Wikipedia redirects to an article on Hegemonic masculinity. Ariel31459 (talk) 23:09, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You don't know toxic masculinity until you've seen Fist of the North Star. I know this sounds trollish, but you're looking at a story where an aggressive man asks other aggressive men to be sorry for their aggressions.  They always apologize, but they are never sorry enough, and they get punched to a fitting death.   Dude literally gets tricked into killing his arch-rival over a girl BY HIS ARCH-RIVAL.  And he's literally questioned about that, and says it's fine because they were both in love with the same woman.  Regards all the torture and bad acting as justified, because that's just another way a man shows his love.  Seriously, watch the anime or read the manga. Jojo;s Bizarre Adventure comes close, but Fist is a clinic for men being toxic.  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 10:28, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Rational Driver
WHY? Why do we keep this person around. There twice as bad as Nobs and TheDarkMaster2 put together and have contributed nothing of value to the wiki besides anti-semitism and racism. Commie Lib (talk) 23:33, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No clue. I have typed up posts that come out wrong or misunderstood in the past, some sounding racist but not my actual intention. Nobs is somewhat tolerable. Rationaldriver is in a league of his or her own. Rationaldriver makes me look sane. That is saying something. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:31, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Would anyone be apposed to me extending the ban permanently? Commie Lib (talk) 00:53, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "No - not opposed" (TYOP? appose: verb to place side by side, as two things; place next to; juxtapose. to put or apply (one thing) to or near to another.) Scream!! (talk) 01:04, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Won't be missed. Was always trouble since posted the first comment and all. 01:05, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok Commie Lib (talk) 01:15, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * He can go back to Metapedia. No love lost. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:49, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Nobs tolerable? Seriously? About as tolerable as a fart in a spacesuit. Cardinal Chang (talk) 08:31, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

In comparison with Rationaldriver, he is somewhat tolerable. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 12:46, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Blimey, really? He must be a right headcase then if he makes Nobs by comparison somewhat tolerable. Cardinal Chang (talk) 16:44, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Considering that Rationaldriver actually buys into the race and intelligence bullshit and supports Hitler. So yeah, nobs is tolerable in comparison. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:37, 19 January 2019 (UTC)


 * "Would anyone be apposed to me extending the ban permanently?" Shouldn't that be discussed at the Chicken coop? From RationalWiki:Blocking_policy: "For any longer block, please get consensus from the mob at the Chicken coop." Thinker(unlicensed) 08:49, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * He's not wrong, a coop case would be needed for a ban of this nature. 14:23, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps but these are guidelines. I don't see the harm in trying out Chicken Coop, but I don't see the results being any different? If trolls don't shut up from temp block, collapses, reverts, and vandalized bin, don't we just resort to long term, and if they don't shut up from long term, do they get Perma? Seems sensical. By the way Rational driver is one of those very persistent trolls. 20:01, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You guys know I can read what you say about me, right? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 11:04, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Aye, we do. Why, do mean words trigger you? Are you needing a safe space? It's ok to admit you're a special little snowflake Cardinal Chang (talk) 14:14, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

American politics in a nutshell
https://youtu.be/cIgSTjzrmRg

This clip sums up American politics. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 13:29, 19 January 2019 (UTC)


 * What about 'Nuts - hell'? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:36, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Fuck it, I'm back.
Thanks to a self enforced "vacation" (read what was supposed to be me stepping back and retiring) I'm back. The terminal inability to retire properly is a hereditary trait in my family. Oh, and the Gillette outrage is still stupid, and if that starts up again I'll flood the saloon with examples of how opportunistic corporations are. 04:27, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Good.Ariel31459 (talk) 04:36, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You left in the first place? —  Ɖøn Ĵuan  Harass  05:01, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Didn't know you were leaving, but welcome back! Bongolian (talk) 05:51, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * How were the video games? 06:40, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Welcome to RationalWiki. You'll never leave! Avida Dollarsher again 12:11, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * See and .  14:25, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You came back so quickly I didn't have time to miss you! 22:33, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Your "terminal inability to retire properly" is that makes you a glorious worker and revolutionary, Comrade! Nerd (talk) 18:41, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Enola
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzDkwqCF7fs —  Ɖøn Ĵuan  Harass  15:56, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Great song! An ordinary human man (talk) 15:57, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

BoJack Horseman
Just finished all the released episodes. Does anyone have any thoughts on it? RoninMacbeth (talk) 23:09, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Really compelling show, TBH. —  Ɖøn Ĵuan  Harass  00:32, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Got a little heavy handed in the last season "This terrible character isn't supposed to make you feel better about yourself being not as bad" being actual dialog isn't subtle. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:50, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * My thoughts? Kristen Schaal's (Sara Lynn) finest work in season 3.  I kinda wish they went a bit more in depth into Sara Lynn's stepfather; it's only vaguely hinted at but her stepfather's character design is actually modeled on an infamous child molester.  She's definitely the saddest character on the show in spite of being the Olson twins. CoryUsar (talk) 02:16, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Lunar eclipse
Hopefully everybody so inclined got their lunar-eclipse-influenced potions completed, so they will be ready for the next equinox/solstice. Anna Livia (talk) 10:58, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I suffered permenant eye damage staring directly at the Lunar Eclipse. Wear the glasses, people.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:58, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You were supposed to be looking at the moon! 19:22, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry with my permanent eye damage, I can't actually see you not getting the joke. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:53, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah I am still super high. 01:59, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I am including 'creators of pleasant lotions and potions' in my original posting as well as the more specialist 'herbalists etc.' Anna Livia (talk) 10:32, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Interesting piece of astronomy news
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2191526-a-meteorite-hit-the-moon-during-yesterdays-total-lunar-eclipse/

Meteorite hits the moon during the lunar eclipse. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:29, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

The impact of dreams (the sleep kind)
Having a good or bad dream can affect the rest of my day, and subsequent days. Scary dreams are very realistic and legitimately scary, even when realizing the absurdity of such. Other dreams are fun and can fill a void, like doing something impossible like flying. Lucid dreaming is the eighth wonder but I only experience it on rare occasion. Whenever we can implant dreams à la Inception, we should use it for good instead of evil (of course, that won't happen). Do you dream, and if so, what are the typical topics? How much does it affect your waking life? —Dorianha Bogelund (talk) 22:06, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Dunno, whenever I dream something depressing, it only impacts the first few hours when I wake up. Afterward, I just write it off as a dream. Lucid dreaming occurs actually pretty frequently for me, especially when I recognize the recurring elements in my dreams such as buying desirable merchandise (in my dream, I'm like "i'm going to lose this as soon as I wake up) or foreseeing what's going to happen in the dream. Frightening dreams do play in my phobias, but dreams of, say, natural disasters are often really exaggerated than in real life, like those dreams about tornadoes I often get (tornadoes don't even occur where I live, so my brain essentially makes up their behavior; after watching real life tornado videos, they behave absolutely nothing than in my dream). 23:03, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * i get stabbed a lot in the dreams that i remember. doesnt have much impact on the next day though. i did have a dream quite recently after which i couldnt decide if it was something that actually happened or not. that was a bit disturbing. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:10, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I am constantly in some kind of school when I dream. Other times my dreams are religious in nature. Other times I am attacked by giant spiders. The rarest dreams are when I die. As for death dreams it can range from simple stabbings, getting shot in the head, heart attack, stroke, eaten by rats, my innards being ripped out and being eaten alive by zombies. With most of my death dreams, I can feel the physical pain. One time I had the dream of being eaten by rats, I could physically feel their teeth sinking into my flesh which included my testicles. That hurt beyond description. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:44, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * they are generally just stress dreams of some description. people read too much into them or want to at least. they usually signify nothing. if you are continually have nightmares or sleep paralysis, the specifics of the dream are less important than the fact you having in such bad dreams in the first place. i can usually tell when i am due some disrupted - mine are usually a result drug usage and the results few days of insomnia. and if you like puff - you probably wont dream at all, but if you stop for a bit - expect a few nights of very vivid dreams. AMassiveGay (talk) 01:53, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I just take my psychiatric medicine, I don't pop them like candy. Wish I could take less medicine. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 02:45, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * sorry i did not mean to imply that was the cause of yours or all nightmares, just mine AMassiveGay (talk) 12:23, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

It's cool. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:37, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That sounds awful, Rationalzombie, I'm sorry you experience that. —Dorianha Bogelund (talk) 03:09, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The realness of RZ's suffering in his replies made me feel uncomfortable sharing my "I never dream" boring story. But... I guess I don't dream?  The pop-psychologists of the internet tell me that means I don't remember my dreams.  Can't confirm or deny.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I thank God and Goddess that death dreams are not often. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 19:14, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Celebration
I know this is a bit late but Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story + Bowser Jr.'s Journey was released. YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAH! 68.0.189.224 (talk) 22:30, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I only got the Superstar Saga remake because I lost my GBA copy. 22:32, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That's only on 3ds right? I've moved on to switch.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 22:39, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a bomb saleswise. I hear it's a step down from the original. Never played the game myself, I much prefer the multiplayer. 01:01, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

A note on Draft Space
, ,

After polishing up an article in draftspace and moving it to mainspace, it's always a good idea to make an announcement in the Saloon that there's a new article in mainspace. Why? Because it does not show up in the list of new mainspace pages (Special:NewPages). Alternatively copy and paste the article into mainspace rather than move it. That will eliminate the draftspace history, but you can (I think) restore the history using Special:MergeHistory if you so desire. Bongolian (talk) 06:01, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, that explains a lot. It also means that I now have a legitimate excuse to come here and boast every time I complete a new translation. That's something that I will enjoy doing! Spud (talk) 09:43, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If anyone starts copy and paste moving pages then I will block them for 3.6 days (in sysoprevoke if needed) purely on principle. You have been warned. 22:46, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The principle being…? Bongolian (talk) 04:40, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty intrigued by what exactly your though process is Dysklyver.  Shabi  DOO  17:37, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The edit history is a legal requirement. Not to mention extremely useful. Don't stuff it up. 19:32, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

So if someone goes the copy-and-paste route but then does the MergeHistory, you should be OK with that, ? Bongolian (talk) 22:08, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Why should edit history be a legal requirement? What's wrong with pages coming fully written right from the start the way Athena sprang forth fully grown and armored from the forehead of Zeus? Nerd (talk) 23:02, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * @Bongolian, yes, see WP:HISTMERGE on Wikipedia for details on how to go about repairing the revision history.
 * @Nerd, there is nothing wrong with you writing the whole thing in one go, the issue is drafts are generally edited by more than one person, and in copyright law, every single edit creates a new derivative work, which build on each other in a way recorded by the edit history. Attribution to the authors for every single one of these derivative works is required by the terms of the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license, if you break the attribution by losing the revision history then the article actually becomes a copyright violation.
 * The only exception to this is where a copy and paste move is made by the author of every edit to the article, because they can re-license their creation in that edit. This is useful for when moving content from a sandbox for example. 01:55, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * So you're going to block a user for making an honest mistake? Shabi  DOO  22:00, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think the MergeHistory command will actually work on copy-pasted pages. I tried it on Trump-Russia connection with the page it was forked from (Donald Trump) and it didn't work. I posted a query about this on the RationalWiki:Technical support page. Bongolian (talk) 03:10, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * @Shabidoo I don't think anyone would be blocked for doing this once or twice, but I am trying to put forward a sense of importance, plus anyone serially screwing up copyrights would be a menace. :)
 * @Bongolian, To history merge a page generally requires a complex set of deletions and undeletions in a specific order to stitch the two pages together, it is more complicated that just plugging the titles into Special:MergeHistory. That said, very simple cases with no overlaps or conflicts can be easily merged. 00:07, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * In the absence of consensus, I moved Grenfell Tower fire from draft space using relocate. Maybe the procedure should be documented somewhere other than the saloon bar, when it's agreed. --Annanoon (talk) 11:45, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

My neighbors are sick fucked up freaks
Me and my family let our neighbors use the YouTube account we have for our T.V, now here is the fun part. Obviously we can view the watch history and what do we find frequently- Live death videos. It is just sick and twisted. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:27, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah you need to move. 18:39, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The internet is destroying all our brains. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:55, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Nah, just some people have fucked up brains to begin with. It didn't take the internet to have the inquisition or the holocaust.  MirrorIrorriM (talk) 16:01, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * After the hurricane, my DSL was still working so I took the password off of my modem and changed the network name to "FreeWiFi" so all my neighbors with Xfinity (which was down) or only cell internet (also down) could use it, and the the log file was an interesting one to say the least. Bet whoever tried to go on porn hub was bummed that I put a webfilter on the modem before I set it up like that. Conspirate (talk) 21:41, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Acronyms
Just a polite notice to everyone here, who puts either abbreviations and/acronyms in any of the stories in “What is going on in the world?”, or any other such part. Unless it is a very well-known such as ISIS, U.S. or NATO for example, please don’t put such acronyms or abbreviations in such titles first as someone like me can get confused. You may put it fully out the first time and then out the acronym to save on space. I got confused with UNC in a title, when it later referred it to the University of North Carolina, to someone who is not American that was confusing. This also includes postal state or county abbreviations such as CA (California), MO (Missouri), MA (Massachusetts), Oxon (Oxfordshire), Glocs (Gloucestershire) and Lancs (Lancashire). Remember, we are NOT all an American audience! Euromec (talk) 20:10, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Plain disagree, you might have a case with UNC, in particular, and then only maybe, but who doesn't know what the IDF is? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:55, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what IDF is. "International defense foundation"? And i never would have guessed what UNC is. If people not from America say they are confused by American acronyms, there is nothing to agree or disagree with. It can be frustrating. As a courtesy to the many many non-American readers here, spending those extra seconds spelling out an acronym is appreciated. Shabi  DOO  21:57, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * IDF is the Israeli Defense Force. 22:15, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * the context of the wigo made the idf one seem pretty clear, to me at least - the case for most wigos. i guess what people are going to recognise is going to vary per acronym per individual. we're not all yanks but i believe the majority are - kinda have to take it as read that some of us might have to google something once in a while. that goes the for yanks not recognising more brit centric stuff or from other locales. UNC? i dont think context would have helped there, prior knowledge/interest in the subject would have been requiredAMassiveGay (talk) 00:41, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You know what they say, the longer route ends up being the shortest way home. I say you should expand abbreviations, it'll just make it easier for everyone in the long run, barring a few exceptions like NATO and NASA. 00:48, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * thats thing though isnt it. 'everyone knows what this is' except they might not. somethings are only obvious if you are already invested in a particular subject, but if you start spelling everything out its starts to look condescending or convoluted - thats why we have acronym in the first place. i realise you had nato as an exception, but as an example, can you imagine spelling out north atlantic treaty organsiation everytime? you'd have more folk googling that than you would nato. context and a thought to the usual audience should be enough to inform when you need a full definition or acronym. im sure if somethings genuinely obscure ive no doubt someone would say something or make a helpful edit. hell, if i have to google something, i might actually take note of something i ordinarily would glance at, decide it doesnt interest me and ignore. AMassiveGay (talk) 01:15, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, usually, in WIGO, we use it just once. But in prose, we usually type it out fully the first time or hyper link it to the full name and we put the abbreviations in parentheses. I don't think I said that we have to write it out fully every time but just the first time should be good and probably apply "when in doubt, expand the name first and once". 19:21, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Some acronyms are known by most people (UK, USA)/easily worked out; some need a little consideration depending upon the context eg these - and some need more context - and if I refer to the CABAL how many people will think automatically of Charles II? Anna Livia (talk) 17:19, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, the notorious Society of Decorative Painters. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:58, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Aww man, I love me some alphabet soup! VHS... does it mean a tape or does it mean Venice High School? CA, does it mean California or Canada? Conspirate (talk) 21:50, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * AR... does it stand for Arkansas, Assault Rifle, or the name of the guy who invented the AR-15? Conspirate (talk) 21:51, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * There is a whopping difference between an international institution like NATO, the UN etc, and one of thousands of universities/colleges in one country. I'm sure more than a few Americans don't even know what UNC means. Of course, it all comes down to a judgement call, but keep in mind a university which never makes the international press, isn't referred to in exported television and cinema, doesn't have a single professor I recognize etc. isn't something a lot of people will know. You are arguing by extremes. No one said spell everything out all the time, and you know that. There is something between never spelling an acronym and always spelling it out. There is a pretty ENORMOUS territory there. What would be nice is that consideration is given to other readers and that if you have some doubt about a local instituion or business, spell it out. It takes five seconds. Shabi  DOO  21:58, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. Are there seriously people who don't know what FBI or CIA are? Now I don't know if people in India, for example, would recognize USPS or FOIA, but it's safe to say someone even in another state probably wouldn't recognize GCHS (a school) or NCH (a hospital). Conspirate (talk) 22:23, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. Are there seriously people who don't know what FBI or CIA are? Now I don't know if people in India, for example, would recognize USPS or FOIA, but it's safe to say someone even in another state probably wouldn't recognize GCHS (a school) or NCH (a hospital). Conspirate (talk) 22:23, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

PewDiePie
Aren't we going to end up with an edit war from his "broarmy", just like with ShoeOnHead?

Also, if he gets a page, then I think Onision & LeafyIsHere should get one too. 141.134.13.189 (talk) 21:40, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I forgot I wasn't logged in. Tinribmancer (talk) 21:41, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Leafy might have enough assholery that it could fill a page, although he is not particularly relevant at the moment unlike PewDiePie. —Dorianha Bogelund (talk) 21:50, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I checked the talk page and about the amount of subs he has (80 mil.); according to a video I found 3 years ago (when he was at 58 mil.), the main reason why he has that many was due to an Algorhythm problem or something that the Youtube staff said. I could look up the video about this, since this youtuber has a few vids about him and sounds a bit like a PewDiePie fanboy (he gets upset about the WSJ thing in one vid and in another about The Sun's article even though he also mentions that The Sun is Satire...) Tinribmancer (talk) 02:01, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * PewDiePie having a page is pretty close to being off-mission, it only just fits in here. Although there are some other things he supposedly did that I will have to add sometime. 10:01, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Mind if I ask why he's under the category "Internet Kooks"? Has he talked about the Illuminati? Freemasons? FEMA Death Camps? I'm not subscribed to him, so. Tinribmancer (talk) 14:11, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "Broarmy"? More like a pink laptop army with all of the hormonal high school girls who vandalize Wikipedia whining about RW attacking him. 205.245.2.112 (talk) 01:36, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Speaking of which, why the hell do we have an article about PewDiePie? RoninMacbeth (talk) 17:35, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Because people kept saying we should have an article on PewDiePie. After nearly a dozen requests it seemed logical to at least give it a trial. It is vaguely relevant imo. Although it could do with some expansion.  17:50, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Trump is holding America hostage
All because of a wall. How can anybody support this? --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 16:25, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * According to a recent poll, only 7% of Americans think giving Donald Trump funding for the wall is the appropriate way to end the shutdown. That is a staggering level of agreement for this fucked up country of ours.  So to answer your question, basically no one does support this.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:34, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Except the congressional republicans for some reason. I'm still surprised that republicans seemed to grow more pro-trump post 2016 election, instead of taking the easy way out and going more anti-trump.  MirrorIrorriM (talk) 18:14, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Source for dumbass BoN who got deleted. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:27, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That's not 7% of all Americans, it's 7% of those who already oppose the wall. To paraphrase, the question was asking "if there's no other way to end the shutdown, would you support wall funding?" 18:56, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, so I have to rescind what I said. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:41, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The full polling is here: https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000168-7bfb-de11-af7d-fffb490d0000 -- My overall take is that the partisanship is strong (as usual), but there is a little bit more leeway on generic "border security" among wall enthusiasts (34% okay with this). One interesting thing about this poll to me is how the West -- the region which in theory would have the most to worry about this manufactured "border crisis" -- is actually the region that least supports a border wall, has the highest amount who are strongly opposed to the wall, and has the lowest amount of folks who says Congress should care about border security. (Who would you trust on issues about the "crisis at the border"? Texas ranchers? Or an ignoramus New York real estate tycoon who thinks Ann Coulter is #1 expert on this topic? Stay tuned!) Soundwave106 (talk) 22:43, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hot take that is also 100% correct: "border security" is dumb and we already spend a goddamn fortune on it, between ICE, Border Patrol(10s of billions every fucking year on this one, that's two hundred fucking thousand teachers at average salary), ATF, Coast Guard, USCIS, physical security measures, and miscellaneous homeland security work. Generically demanding "more" of it is as inane and pointless as demanding a wall where already have fencing, and simply reflects incredibly strong and stupid racism .  It's not an accurate understanding of how "illegal" immigration actually happens, it's cost per deportation or busted smuggling operation is already astronomical, it creates a police state for no fucking reason, and everyone advocating it is a piece of human trash, regardless of how they ideologied themselves into it.  Preaching to the choir and two or three complete dumbasses, who won't look at how much we spend, but fuck "more" for things dumbasses don't even appreciate how much we spend now.    ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 01:05, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If there was a big wall along the border you could justifiably do away with Border Patrol you know. ;) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 02:07, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No one actually believes that. Not even you, telling it to my face.  You put a winky-face so you could say it's a joke, but what's the punchline?  That it's not at all true?  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 04:08, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Or it could be greatly diminished anyway. Does anyone really believe a proper wall wouldn't significantly reduce illegal immigration at the southern border and make it a lot more manageable? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 04:56, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * A "Proper Wall" won't be there. It's now a punch of spiked poles really close together. An ordinary human man (talk) 13:34, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The 2006 Secure Fence act proved to be quite ineffective, so nope. The best way to stop illegal immigration is to stop businesses from employing illegal immigrants. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4252712/) (Ironically, E-Verify was suspended during this fine government shutdown.) Soundwave106 (talk) 13:30, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You cited an interesting but quite long paper. Could you point to the salient paragraphs of the paper that support your claim that "The best way to stop illegal immigration is to stop businesses from employing illegal immigrants" ? Thinker(unlicensed) 13:50, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, for this, it's a derived conclusion from the paper, to be honest. The whole point of the paper is that illegal immigration is by an large driven by employment demand. ("Decreases in labor demand in industrial sectors that employ a large percentage of Mexican-born workers, such as construction, are found to be strongly associated with lower rates of migration for Mexican men.") The logical conclusion from this is that laws to stop employers from hiring illegal immigrants would be an effective deterrent, and indeed, for a specific paper directly tying E-Verify and reduced immigration, refer to here -- https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s40176-016-0053-3 For a contrast, compare the Cato Institute's excellent analysis on the futility of the wall -- https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/why-wall-wont-work . (Not that this stuff matters to many wall supporters, because DuceMoosolini's assertion that this is low-intelligence populism designed as a nugget for racists sounds pretty spot on to me.)Soundwave106 (talk) 15:34, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * (I will add another nugget. Generally, the studies I can Google on whether border enforcement actually decreases immigration seem to indicate that it doesn't work really well. Here's an example study -- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5049707/ Again, not like this stuff matters to the debate.)Soundwave106 (talk) 15:53, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. The Cato Institute analysis seems the most interesting. Thinker(unlicensed) 17:15, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The people who actually know things about border security don't want a wall. A wall is useful through large cities and areas where the Border Patrol can respond quickly, but it's just about useless through most of the vast stretches of desert that our border actually runs through. By the time the Border Patrol gets to those parts of the wall, the migrants have either climbed over or the cartels would've blown through it. This entire wall idea is based on the idiotic preconception that Mexicans somehow don't know what ropes and ladders are for. With the constant damage being inflicted on this hundreds-of-miles long wall, it would be enormously expensive to maintain. For a fraction of the cost, you could just implement drone surveillance and other technologies that would actually be effective at tracking people until Border Patrol can get to them. The wall was never a serious policy proposal; it was a way to get the white trash riled up at Trump's rallies. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a rube. 14:20, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Or they could just saw through the goddamn thing. 14:23, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Really, the Great Wall of China should provide some great lessons. The Chinese dynasties were never able to man and maintain that giant fucking thing, and as a result, China got invaded from the north over and over again. The Mongols and even random raiders just found a part of the wall that had been compromised and rode on in. 14:27, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Ikanreed shows such compassion; I'm going to go down to Central America, buy a couple 15 year old girls for $20, bring them back here and sell them for $500. If we get stopped at the border, I'll say we're fleeing violence and have no papers. Since their my kids, we can't be separated. And we can't be racially profiled either just cause their skin is a little darker than mine. If someone questions me or my motives, I'll just call them a racist. Shit, I could make that run back and forth a few time a month. nobspiss in my ear 17:23, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You're precisely right, 4gnomesinatrenchcoat(An ordinary human man). Trump isn't going for a proper wall, he's going for a steel slat fence along only part of the border. Though hopefully the media's disproportionate dramamongering will still discourage enough people from risking their livelihood and the lives of their kids to be exploited by monstrous trafficking networks.
 * The reason I bring up a "proper big wall" is because Ikanreed clearly wants to reduce the budget of border security agencies (with good reason; everything in the US government is bloated and corrupt) and ironically(!) a good proper wall would make Border Patrol largely redundant. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:16, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I've already gone on at great length as to why a wall wouldn't do that. 19:26, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That's because you're not imagining it big and proper enough! But there's no need to argue at great length, I'm only bringing up the wall for a throwaway joke. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:39, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

The right wing congressmen are completely failing at representing the people. Donald Trump is making a mockery of the what the United States is supposed to stand for. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:56, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "you could just implement drone surveillance and other technologies that would actually be effective at tracking people until Border Patrol can get to them."
 * I think that many people who oppose the wall would oppose drones even stronger, because of their association with military and war. That's not an argument in favor of the wall, just an observation that such a solution could be even more unwelcome than a wall. Thinker(unlicensed) 17:29, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That probably depends on why the person in question opposes the wall. My primary reason for opposition is that it would be ineffective and a waste of money, and I'm sure I'm not alone among the American public in holding this view. However, I'm sure there'd be a fair number of people who would oppose surveillance on those merits. 17:32, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I actually like drones, just not for warfare or obnoxious people. Hell, drones can be good for keeping people safe when they cross the border. 19:28, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * A crunch-point is likely to be reached late next week - when 'the ordinary government workers' find the usual payday point 'payments elsewhere' are made but they don't get paid. Anna Livia (talk) 12:27, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This, by the way, is the formula for low-level corruption in government. And it doesn't stop when paychecks start coming again.  A lesson is learned, but the damage is irreversible.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:03, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I oppose the wall because it will fragment and damage natural habitats. No way Trump gives a damn though. But anyway, if we don't want people coming in, then we should support

a socialist candidate and hopefully we turn into Venezuela and then no one will want to come to this country. Problem solved. 19:28, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The pathetic design of the wall would allow simple sledgehammer strikes to cause sufficient damage. If a basic car can smash through a brick wall, it would be easy to smash through the Trump Wall. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 20:32, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Ikanreed - were you replying to me?
 * How far will the ripple effect of 'the ordinary government workers' not being paid spread out - the trickle-outwards effect(to borrow a phrase)? And ditto the absence of the services they normally provide (and the logjam arising when 'normal service' does resume - especially as people will start thinking of alternative employment.
 * Just because next year is an election year doesn't mean the showdown won't happen again. Anna Livia (talk) 23:44, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Just a reminder
The trump administration purposefully harmed children with their immigration policy, on the grounds that the media reporting it might have a chilling effect. As many have noted before me, the cruelty is the point. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:59, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Noted. The cruelty is the point, and the point affects only one target.   This is how the power plays it back on the powerless.  This is how power justifies separating children from their parents, just to make sure its not child trafficking.  But there is a huge population that thinks child trafficking via undocumented immigration is real. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:47, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Do we separate the children from the child traffickers or give the children to the child traffickers? It's a non-sum argument if you believe such things Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:54, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but they don't actually believe that's what's happening when they say that's what they're doing. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:53, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Using children as weapons of politics is just sick and twisted. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 16:36, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The people in power only sometimes believe it, but the people who hang onto their idols in power do believe it is justifiable over this child sex traffic argument. I mean, the guy who fired a shot at that Comet pizza shop only apologized after he was shown there was no basement.  He didn't fire a shot AT anybody, but he believed what he'd heard enough to fire a round off in a completely innocent pizza shop.  His actions were over the top and reckless, but at least his vigilante investigation didn't kill anybody, because he was being fringe conspiracy vigilante reasonable about things.
 * It's become the same justification I give for being against the death penalty. If we get it wrong even once, we've executed somebody unjustly, and we've all done it by being complicit with the law (my state overturned the death penalty, then reinstated it, so it's on everybody's mind as much as any legal topic).  That's been harder for the death penalty supporters to wave away than the disproportionate sentencing argument, because they have to then justify why it's OK to get it wrong.  The problem with hardliners is they understand they are usually fully considering and acting on outlier statistics when it comes to anything, including immigration.  It's tougher when they have to explain why they are acting in FAVOR of outlier statistics.  The problem for them is when you find that 1% chance when it's absolutely against everything they stand for, they can't explain why it's OK.  But with immigration hardliners, there is a lot less passion, if not the same amount of misunderstanding as the Comet Ping Pong Punisher.  But then of course I have to answer the claim that if one child is brought in for sex trafficking, shouldn't we first deny all undocumented immigration?
 * Not exactly. That is like saying we should either stop putting people in prison because we've executed people unfairly, or we should put everyone in prison because executions are right 90% of the time.  The crossing the border issue becomes wildly less important when I use this analogy, because the potential for one of these people to commit violent crime is statistically lower than it is for a natural born citizen.  So the urgency for change dies and they're happy enough with how things are, I'm suddenly the one who cares too much about it, there goes my touchdown, whoosh, goalposts shifted in a bad equivalency.  But, alright.  Whatever.  Sometimes the best defense is just a good defense.  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 06:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Snaritt there is an enormous chasm between locking someone up unfairly and state extermination of a prisoner. The latter is the ultimate dehumanisation, a human being not even deserving the dignity of being alive, and the history of executions in the US have demonstrated they are rife for mistakes, injustices, huge bias against marginalised people, very expensive, don't work as deterrents and then there is the whole pointless homicide of a human being (which may turn out to be an error). You can appologise to a wrongly imprisoned person and give compensation and perhaps learn from their lesson. You cannot do that to a corpse in the ground and clearly the American states that still murder citizens have not learnt any lesson other than using citizen murder methods that aren't completely barbaric. I Shabi  DOO  10:14, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Pronunciation of cement
On numerous occasions now, I've heard the American South pronounce ce-MENT as semen with a T. Actually, they do this with many words, most disconcertingly "DE-cember", but one would think they'd eventually stop saying semen-t. —Dorianha Bogelund (talk) 21:00, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It's just a regional accents thing. As a person who's moved from Florida to Kansas, I just had to get used to it. Although I can't believe some people call soda "pop". 21:03, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * In Left 4 Dead 2, one of the survivors, Nick, makes fun of the pronunciation of "cement" at Ellis's (a southerner) expense ("You could almost call this a SEE-meant river, Ellis!"). Ellis just sarcastically laughs. Heh. I didn't get the joke at the time, though. 21:09, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * One of my biggest insecurities is that, growing up in the rural south, I developed a southern accent without knowing it. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:20, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Guess ill join in this odd convo after my long absence due to life. This reminds me of all the ways people say tomato, avocado, advertisement, tortilla, and garbage. 23:04, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I have the weirdest verbal tick with the word garbage, even when I'm trying my best to say it right, it comes out like "the president of the United States" ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 23:07, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Heh, personally I don't like any candidates, none of them finish what they promise and most are crap anyways. The only ones who end up being the last standing are the worst of the two sides. Guess I hate politics in general. 23:12, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * We should probably let readers know what region we are from before we comment because each region has pronunciation quirks. I'm from Southern California. 00:28, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm from Connecticut. We basically have no accent/quirks, aside from not saying the "t" in words like "Mountain" or "Kitten." An ordinary human man (talk) 13:23, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Mid-Central Michigan is where I live. Plenty of people who are of French and German descent are in Michigan. Though many Dutch people live in western Michigan. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 03:16, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Being central Midwest US TV accent ideal, I do like to pick up other pronunciations for fun. Robuht instead of Robot, Buhrehly instead of Barely, and Pronunciation instead of Pronownciation are some of my favorite against-the-grain go-tos.  I even go as far as to say Catsup and Sherbet once any decade I might need to say either word.Gol Sarnitt (talk) 06:57, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Indigenous Peoples March
The Guardian:

"A Catholic school in Kentucky has condemned a group of its students after they were recorded harassing a Native American Vietnam veteran in a video that went viral on Saturday.

The students, many of whom were wearing “Make America Great Again” caps, from private, all-male Covington Catholic High School in Park Hills were in Washington for an anti-abortion rally on Friday when they were filmed surrounding Nathan Phillips and mocking the Native American’s singing and drumming."

Thinker(unlicensed) 12:42, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Nathan Phillips is a Vietnam veteran too. He's done more for his country than that lot of puffed up, self righteous embarrassments will ever aspire to. Cardinal Chang (talk) 14:11, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Anyhow, his story does not add up.
 * Nathan Phillips: "When I started going forward and the massive group of people started separating and separating and moving aside to allow me to move out of the way, to proceed, this young fellow put himself in front of me and he wouldn't move. If a took another step, I would be putting myself into his space and I would have touched him. That would have been the thing the group of people needed to spring on me." CNN (at 1:30).
 * But here you see that is Phillips that deliberately walked into the boy's space. Thinker(unlicensed) 15:23, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you find a video of the same time frame but from further back? It's hard to gauge if the smirking twerp moves into N.P.'s path or if N.P. walks into his. Cardinal Chang (talk) 16:10, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * In this video you cas see that Phillips was the first to walk into the group of boys. Also, here you can see Phillips banging the drum on the boy's shoulder. Thinker(unlicensed) 18:26, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Interesting footage, I have to admit. And not how the story has been framed. One wonders what brought those disparate groups together. The catholic school was part of an anti-abortion protest, what were the indigenous people protesting about? On a side note, the event as a whole seems to be indicative of politics in America lately, and in other places around the world. Cardinal Chang (talk) 18:42, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see the inconsistencies between what Phillips said and what happened. I do see how it's indicative of politics, though, that right-wing movements have to be opposed. 20:38, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "I don't see the inconsistencies between what Phillips said and what happened."
 * Then you don't see the difference between "somebody that put himself in front of you" and "you that walk to somebody who is standing still." Thinker(unlicensed) 21:06, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "One wonders what brought those disparate groups together"
 * As far as I understood, the boys where waiting their bus for the . In the meantime, some Black Hebrews Israelites were screaming at the Native Americans that the true God is Jehovah, that they should "stop worship Eagles, Buffaloes..." and that that was the reason why their land was taken (click). After almost an hour of this nonsense, the BHL called "Uncle Toms" some black guys, and then said that they "have all these dirty ass crackers behind you", referring to the boys with MAGA hats (click). From that moment, the BHL continue to insults the MAGA hats. Then Phillips came, probably misunderstanding the situation. (click).
 * Thinker(unlicensed) 21:02, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That all maybe so. You may well like to think it, and it could possibly even be as you say it is. But all that comes to mind as I see that shit eating smirk on the red hat wearing creep is the word "backpfeifengesicht" and it really is. Cardinal Chang (talk) 22:21, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah.... I have to redact my older opinions on this; this may not be what the media shows it. The guy who was with the drummer offered his side of the story, so now, I have to take his word for it that he seems misunderstood? He was more like grinning and bearing it? The Black Hebrew Israelites said very horrible things, racist and homophobic slurs, to the kids though; you shouldn't be saying this to people, even if they are wearing the red hats. I think the two misunderstood each other. Phillips was trying to diffuse between the school kids and the nasty Black Hebrew Israelites, perhaps Sandmann didn't know about that, and just stood there, trying to remain calm, though this could be taken as being passive aggressive? Anyhow, it's the Black Hebrew Israelites that are the real villains of the story, it seems. I probably got the wrong information and impressions, and so I'm highly doubting the previous information I'm getting. I think this is a huge misunderstanding between Phillips and the kids, and the media in their part, didn't do a good job. The guy who was with Phillips said he received a lot of harassment, death threats, insults, all that horrible stuff. I also condemn people on social media who said these people are incels or future school shooters or future rapists or should've been aborted, I've always been uncomfortable reading it and now I have more reason to distance myself from them. I'm still on the fence on the actual event though, I don't know if I'm wrong, Reason might be right, but maaaybe I should just see the video. 01:54, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This is the whole story, according to newsmaven. Not a pretty thing to sit through. I think the story I buy is that the students acted really stupid, the Black Hebrew Israelites were awful (but that's to be expected), and Phillips was just trying to diffuse the entire thing, but maybe the students were confused by him. 02:06, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The story should have been about a group of Black Hebrew Israelites harassing Native Americans, Blacks, and kids (essentially everybody on the scene) with crazy religion theories and racial slurs. Instead, the major media outlets intentionally or incompetently (and both cases are very bad) created a story about racist MAGA hat boys harassing a Native American vet, putting the boys under the threat of an angry mob. Thinker(unlicensed) 08:49, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * What I'm wondering is why are people investing time and attention in obvious manufactroversies? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 02:52, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * What? 04:23, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I think all this means that the entry in WIGO:World needs to be updated. Or rewritten. Or removed. Or something. Spud (talk) 14:30, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed the media was likely weary of having to demonstrate two different stories, and that white boys in trump hats towards native-americans is a far more explosive story than a group of African-Jewish people saying scummy shit. Regardless of who started it, who said the worst thing, who blocked who...the video is still very disturbing. There is no doubt these school-boys were both aggressively and passive-aggressively mocking him, insulting him etc all with those snotty righteous dipshit smerks on their faces. I'd be sickened if they were my students and I'd certainly support them being expelled if they did this while on a school activity. Shabi  DOO  17:34, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No doubt? The boys were dancing and singing to the beat of the drum. Isn't that something that a drummer who walks into a group of people should expect? No boy says anything insulting to Phillips, and the fact that you don't like their faces means nothing.
 * To say it all, after almost a hours of insults from the BHL and after Phillips came as close as possible to them singing and drumming loudly (which, despite Phillips' intentions, could have been seen as very confrontational) the boys reaction was dancing, chanting and... having fun; instead of getting angry or even physical, like many other people would have done in such a situation. For their ages they handled the situation pretty well. Thinker(unlicensed) 18:12, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Clearly we have watched a few different videos, cause unless one of us is extremely naive or gullible, who knows. But then what do we do with the accounts of other witnesses and a lack of accounts from the school-boys. Sure, some seem to be just laughing at the situation, some are even singing along, others are totally mocking the song and singing out Indian stereotypes and then there are the witness accounts of others claiming in the same way that they made specific offensive comments numerous times some of those boys made no "positive effort" at all. They're being smug dip-shits and I'm also weary of dismissing or ignoring other witnesses accounts because they aren't palatable. Shabi  DOO  19:17, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "But then what do we do with the accounts of other witnesses and a lack of accounts from the school-boys..."
 * I sincerely have no idea of what you mean. Thinker(unlicensed)
 * The thing about eyewitness accounts is just how unreliable they are and are so prone to warping from personal experience and biases. I would take those with a grain of salt. The videos and plain descriptions from multiple angles are more reliable than eyewitness. I think overall, this is heavily overblown? What those kids did are stupid and insensitive, but they are in no way like the racists who threw food at sit-in protestors, what the liberals compare them to. I believe the boy's account too as well as Phillips, and I do wish the boy learns something or two (like learn to walk away and disengage, learn about the symbolism of the red hats, which him and his group didn't do and are big mistakes; but saying "they should've walked away" is just being Captain Hindsight) though those morons who harassed him and sent him death threats and shit are doing the absolute wrong thing in combating racism and bigotry and can really screw off. 21:47, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Millennium Scallion (talk) 04:27, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "I believe the boy's account too as well as Phillips"
 * At least two things that Phillips said are contradicted by the videos. As I have already pointed out, he said that the boy put himself in front of him, but the video shows that was Phillips to walk into the boy's space. He also said the boys where chanting "build the wall" (which, by the way, it's not something insulting), but that's not heard in the videos.
 * "I do wish the boy learns something or two ... learn about the symbolism of the red hats"
 * The MAGA hat is the symbol of the 2016 Trump's presidential campaign. It's not a symbol of hate, and nobody should be harassed for wearing it in a public place. That's what should been learned about the MAGA hat.
 * "those morons who harassed him and sent him death threats and shit are doing the absolute wrong thing in combating racism and bigotry."
 * They are doing the wrong thing period. They are not combating racism and bigotry. Thinker(unlicensed) 08:09, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No, the MAGA hat has been quite co-opted by the far-right / white-nationalist / alt-right crowd at this point. I mean, when you go to places like r/TheDonald, the place on Reddit for Donald Trump fans, you aren't going to hear sober advocacy of Austrian school economics or discussion of the perils of bloated government. Instead, you are going to see (aside from the usual muckracking) anti-immigrant or anti-minority spin, "globalist" conspiracy and other conspiracy theories, and the usual "white male victim" crap. Reddit by comparison is tame compared to the flat out racism you see on "uncensored" platforms (your 8Chans and Voats). So yes, that's what the hat represents to me today, sorry. At any rate, I found the attitude of the high school kids in the video smug, condescending, and for some of them borderline racist (yes, even in the full video), so no surprise with the hats. It is not so egregious to deserve the stupid social media storm it got, but it certainly isn't Christian behavior, it certainly isn't respectable behavior in my book, and to call the left wing media's reaction as 100% fake news (as the right wing is falling over themselves to do) only amplifies how boorish attitudes are now baked into the American right wing. (It is true that the Black Hebrew Israelites were actually even nastier folks, but everyone knows they are extremist nuts, and I have seen zero articles with positive words to them.) Soundwave106 (talk) 13:52, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "No, the MAGA hat has been quite co-opted by the far-right / white-nationalist / alt-right crowd at this point. I mean, when you go to places like..."
 * Racists wearing MAGA hats doesn't make MAGA hats a symbol of racism. If you go to other places, you can see non-racists wearing MAGA hats. Claiming that the symbol of the campaign of the current US president, voted by about 63 million Americans (including 600 thousand Blacks and 2 million Latinos), is a symbol of racism is delusional.
 * "that's what the hat represents to me today... I found the attitude of the high school kids in the video smug, condescending, and for some of them borderline racist..."
 * Is more interesting having a conversation about facts, instead of your opinions.
 * "It is true that the Black Hebrew Israelites were actually even nastier folks, but everyone knows they are extremist nuts"
 * Nobody here (not certain me) is claiming that the boys' behavior was OK because the BHL behavior was worse, so you made a counterargument to an argument that nobody made. The BHL behavior was really bad and the boys' behavior wasn't bad. Thinker(unlicensed) 17:02, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You seem to be handbrushing away the asshole mocking behavior of the high school students, which I see as pretty factual at this point. So I question your deep concern about "facts". And the root source of MAGA hats being co-opted by white nationalists is Donald Trump making a number of racist statements and actions, so what is the surprise here? Not everyone who voted for Trump is a racist, but not every Trump voter is still wearing the MAGA hat in 2019. At this point I consider the excuses on the MAGA hat similar to other handwaving done for things like the Confederate flag and, to give an example on the left, things like Che Guevara T-shirts. If you don't know the full background of why such might be offensive, you are quite ignorant. But it is far more likely that such a person is covering up a world view that they know is socially unacceptable. (In the anonymous Internet, this tends to be confirmed.) Soundwave106 (talk) 22:32, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I've commented out the story on WIGO:World, which said that Trump-supporting and abortion-opposing schoolboys were nasty to an old Native American man. There's obviously more to the story than that and it looks like it might be a while before the whole truth comes out. If anybody would like to update the story, that's fine. But I feel better hiding what seems to be an oversimplified and inaccurate WIGO entry instead of just leaving it there. Spud (talk) 06:16, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Well done. Thinker(unlicensed) 07:51, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

is it normal in the us for schools to send its pupils out on demos or to have such overt partisanship? AMassiveGay (talk) 15:24, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Not so for public schools, at least in my experience. However, the school in question is a private Catholic institution. 15:25, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * its pretty disgusting imho - assuming its not just a group from a school not endorsed by it. and then theres sending kids from an all male school to an anti abortion demo AMassiveGay (talk) 15:29, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * also, are private schools registered charities like in the uk (currently, but in question)? AMassiveGay (talk) 15:37, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if charity is the right word, but they do get the 501(c)(3) tax exemption offered by the IRS to nonprofits. 15:42, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * that answers my follow up question - such political activity is apparently allowed. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:46, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Find it sad that someone who fought for his country gets treated like garbage. As someone against racism, it is sickening. As someone who supports the military and veterans, it is sickening. Anybody got a barf bag for me? This is stomach churning. Talk about ignoring the teachings of Jesus. What the fuck? --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 16:28, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems you read the first post, and you missed the entire thread. Thinker(unlicensed) 17:02, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The smug superior stare down made me think that kid was going to break into singing Tomorrow Belongs To Me, but since Catholic high school boys are notorious assholes, especially in a group, and especially on a school field trips, I chalk it up to adolescent idiocy. However Trump using it to stir up hatred of the Lügenpresse is downright creepy. Millennium Scallion (talk) 17:13, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * he was treated like garbage though - from the black israelites at least, according to the thread here. by the school kids? who knows - conflicting reports, while the video posted can be viewed as a rorschach test - its doesnt prove or disprove anything and can you read it to what ever you like - either walking through the crowd, he was funnelled into that boy who refused to give way or coming face to face with native american veteran, the boy could only give a nervous grin, unsure how to react. believe what you want to believe but the evidence is ambiguous at bestAMassiveGay (talk) 17:22, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The main media outlets rushed to tell a false story, intentionally or incompetently, putting boys under the threat of an angry mob... and the creepy one is Trump?
 * "video posted can be viewed as a rorschach test - its doesnt prove or disprove anything"
 * It disprove some of the things Phillips says, I have already commented about that. Thinker(unlicensed) 17:32, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If he was unsure of how to react he could simply step aside. Getting into an elderly drummer's face while his buds are acting up is adolescent macho. Stupid and assholish, but not conclusively racist. Millennium Scallion (talk) 17:30, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * or just give a nervous grin. as i said - it doesnt disprove the veterans account nor prove it. you read in to whatever you want - you have, and so has unlicensedthinker. as i said, the video is ambiguous. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:39, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "If he was unsure of how to react he could simply step aside."
 * Being unsure of how to react includes being unsure if stepping aside is a good idea. Anyhow, if stepping aside would or wouldn't have been better doesn't matter: If you are standing still and somebody gets as close as possible to you invading your personal space, you have no obligation to step aside.
 * "Getting into an elderly drummer's face"
 * It was Phillips who got into the boy face with his drummer. At some point he even touched the boy shoulder with his drum. Thinker(unlicensed) 17:41, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * at this stage this insisting it was one or the other is pretty stupid. its not inconsistent with with the native americans account,and from his position it could certainly seem threatening to him. its just as likely a misunderstanding from one or both sides. i will say again for a third time, it is ambiguous and you are reading into it what what you want to read into, and assuming motive to boot. as some said earlier, its american politics in a nutshell - the other side is always wrong and assume the worst possible motive. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:56, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It's one thing to take witness accounts with a grain of salt, it's another thing to dismiss them because you don't like them. In any case, the BBC interviewed or obtained the accounts of several other people there (the CBC article has more accounts). I almost always read American news through the BBC or CBC, because they are far more objective and they often to in depth. Shabi  DOO  22:08, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

UnlicensedThinker, Spud, AMassiveGay: Thank you for your thoughts on the matter which more or less validate my thoughts. I feel like I'm going crazy when practically the rest of the liberals wholly disagree with me and make such pronounced statements on the boys, and TheAtlantic entry on WIGO:Blogs has negative points when I actually agree with it. I keep seeing that people just say the boy is lying to cover his ass but IMO, people are holding the students to a higher standard. You can criticize the boys with their dumb MAGA hats and their approach, but people are also jumping to conclusions when they say the boys are racist smug assholes. Even to say they're "mocking" is an interpretation of an event you're not part of.

"If he was unsure of how to react he could simply step aside." that's the thing, you're being Captain Hindsight. I think at the time, he's bewildered and he perhaps decided to just stand there and hold his ground. He doesn't know what Phillips is doing, and Phillips is the one who approached. I'd imagine the boy was ignorant of Native American culture, so IMO my guess would be that he, in his limited experience with political gathering, would just stand there, and maybe smile. "but everyone knows they are extremist nuts"; clearly some people don't because they weren't identified already, and I really think it's within realm of possibility that the teens do not know who they are. I think if I were in his shoes, I would also be stunned and stand there, not sure if I'd smile, but I think I might've done the same thing.

Also, AMassiveGay, as far as I know, private tax-exempt schools are not allowed to engage in political activities, per being tax-exempt. I think the school is stretching the boundaries and did the very wrong thing of sending kids to an anti-abortion rally. 00:35, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * when i googled 501s, it seemed to imply party politics is a no no, but lobbying activity, of which demos would probably count, for specific issues is fine. i wasnt trying 'catch' the school out, just using your students for your political ends seems to pretty dubious to me and i was just seeing lie of the land. AMassiveGay (talk) 01:37, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Nick Sandmann was interviewed by TODAY: Thinker(unlicensed) 14:31, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Deleted a bunch of redirects
Some new user created an article for "Korephillia" which alleged a variant of lesbian pedophilia that was "controversial". I was bothered by the article itself, but when new socks regged in order to create redirects to it and edit articles to link to it in weird ways, it set off alarm bells of being some kind of wandal stunt. I've deleted the pages, and if anyone can think of a reason why that was wrong of me, feel free to restore. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:15, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * My bad; that was me. My connection tends to be intermittent sometimes so resulting in time-outs on my side. But I'm not a vandal or anything and I didn't write it in a manner that sanctioned it; I specifically described it as a paraphilia in the first line, as in it is something abnormal. Tharaghludazedb (talk) 20:49, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Forgive me if I'm being unfair and demanding an explanation, but why would a connection being flaky require 3 different accounts? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:54, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * When you're logged out you have to remember you're old password. I don't plan to continue to be an editor so I just typed in random characters. I was lucky to log into this account after trying the others. Tharaghludazedb (talk) 21:01, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I guess I was overzealous. I'll restore the article, though my reservations about it remain.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:06, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If you can't remember your password, then why don't you just click the "forgot password" link? And what's with your fixation on this... Korephilia? Just curious. -- Goatspeed. 22:41, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Welp, it's safe to assume they're gone. So it's now a drive-by article unlikely to edited again in the near future, do you think we should delete it?  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:59, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Probably. Korephilia is briefly mentioned in Pedophilia and it could be expanded if anyone is so inclined. —Dorianha Bogelund (talk) 09:59, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Circular. I'm not that computer savvy, but I thought you need an e-mail for that. As for the topic, the recent R Kelly documentary was pretty surprising. Anyway, if anyone wants the page altered somehow, let us know. Tharaghludazedb (talk) 20:16, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

e-cigarettes and America
i get the impression that e-cigarettes arnt that poular in the US. if i'm not wrong, whats the deal there? AMassiveGay (talk) 14:30, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Er. Vapes are incredibly popular in the US, at least among teens, to the point where we've seen sharp increases in teen nicotine use, as many vaping devices such as Juul vaporizors can be hidden in pens or concealed as flash drives. The FDA has even labeled it an "epidemic." ℕoir LeSable (talk) 15:44, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * popularity is maybe the wrong choice of words. whats the official stance? in the UK, everyone from the government, the nhs, various anti smoking lobbiest, cancer charities etc are very 'pro' e-cigs in the sense that they so so less harmful than actual tabacco. in the us a whole raft of regulation is in place. whats the reasoning behind that? that kids are stupid and do stupid things isnt really a good argument in my imho. even our own article on the subject is less than positive. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:43, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * In the UK, the regulators understand harm reduction. In the US, the regulators are moralists who imagine that tobacco use is an evil to be eradicated. Some people never learn, it seems.  Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 20:04, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * While I agree with the sentiment, I would like to add the "harm reduction" is not some automatic result of introducing a less harmful variant of something. Widespread availability of vaping technologies, especially to minors, could, reasonably be construed to increase the total smoking population moreso than taking existing smokers from their current preferences.  The vaporized heavy metal emissions of cheap vaporizers is well documented, and preliminary research shows it has negative health impact on the lungs.  So, a goal of harm reduction should be bolstered by outcome-centric studies.
 * The research showing is effective as a tool for smoking cessation is plentiful, beating out both patches and cessation counseling. But vape cartridges higher nicotine concentration levels increase combustible cigarette smoking. And ads for vape stores provoke smoking behaviors in people attempting to quit.  It's a mess, even as a "better than tobacco" concept.   ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:29, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * E-cigarette refills are made in China, to the dismay of American tobacco farmers. nobspiss in my ear 21:30, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "I would like to add the "harm reduction" is not some automatic result of introducing a less harmful variant of something."
 * Indeed, it depends on how many people who were practicing the harmful habit switch to the less harmful habit and how many people who were not practicing the harmful habit switch to the less harmful habit. It could be that after e-cigs introduction, few cigarettes smokers switch to e-cigs compared to the number of non-smokers that switch to e-cigs, so that the overall harm increases. Thinker(unlicensed) 22:32, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

If it was only about alternatives for people who already smoke, it probably wouldn't be an issue, but vapes are now beginning drug for young people. Vaping's overall health effects are not really known because vaping is relatively new. Vaping is assumed to be safer than cigarettes because there are fewer known carcinogens in them. See vaping. Bongolian (talk) 18:23, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * When vaping first came out, most places in the US that prohibited cigarette smoking would allow vaping because supposedly it was just "water vapor." Not so much anymore. Conspirate (talk) 21:58, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * i really loathe the 'but young people are doing it'. i mean so what? kids too young to smoke shouldnt be vaping and shouldnt be be allowed - the case in most places. they shouldnt drink neither, but guess what? they do. if they old enough? if they are thick enough to start then let the dumb fucks. this is just the 'think of the children' bullshit that we mock people for saying about booze and other drugs. ultimately, making it harder to vape if you smoke already and you want to stop, unable to stop, or just dont want to, is effectively murdering you. we know how toxic tobacco smoke is. we know all about the cancer it causes. we know all about the heart disease it causes. we know all about the misery it causes. we know that vaping is so so much less toxic. we know it makes it easier to quit. no one claims vaping is healthy or without risk, but that it 'might' have long term problem is nonsense when you consider the alternative - how could it possibly be worse than than what we 'know' tobacco smoking does to people? i havent had a fag in years and i smoked a lot and my health, though its never been poor per say, has clearly better. if regulation is needed it is to ensure product quality and safety, and limits on the nicotine strength. i'm even fine with vaping outside - i do that anyway.
 * the key phrase here is damage limitation.AMassiveGay (talk) 01:05, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I can say from personal experience in my last year of HS the fire alarm went off every week or so from dumbass kids "juuling" in the bathrooms, and a basic greeting among lower classmen was "can i hit ur "juul"?. 'Legion what do you want from me  09:39, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

hbomberguy
So, I bumped against a 8 part response from a guy called MauLer on Harris's "Dark Souls 2" video (which caused alot of controversy, it seems) in 2017 and I have some questions about that (thought it would be better to ask here, instead of on Youtube against that MauLer guy for reasons):

1. Is Harris smug? He mentions this 5 or 6 times in those video's, saying something like "this is the reason why most people don't take you serious, because of your smugness" (he also mentioned that he's a feminist, which I don't really understand what him being a Feminist has to do with Dark Souls 2 (he said "you're a Feminist, shouldn't you be mentioning this?". Don't ask me what he was talking about...). He also said that he occasionally uses clickbait titles or something (this guy uses alot of terms from Category:Logic).

2. Would this be on mission if this was added to his page? I only know about that 8 part video I mentioned. Plus there are, apparently, some comments on that video from hbomberguy (saw the screenshots in MauLer's vid, since I have an "hide youtube comments" add-on for Chrome).

Thought I'd ask, since this MauLer guy claims that he likes his video's for entertainment but at the same time using stuff in those video's that makes it look as if he hates the guy... Tinribmancer (talk) 12:11, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 8 part "response" to an already comically overlong, purposefully subjective video about a video game? Youtube is the dregs.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:40, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Here's the dreg. +1 extra vid (almost 2 hours long).


 * I kind of miss the fact that people used to only post normal stuff (way back in 2006) or cat vids... Tinribmancer (talk) 17:29, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No it's just that he tried to defend DS2 and said the the O&S fight would be better with only Ornstine... Like an idiot. Commie Lib (talk) 00:44, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Chequebook diplomacy
I have just done a page on chequebook diplomacy, I hope I haven't made it too dry, either as a topic or the content. Euromec (talk) 20:36, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd like to thank you for formatting your citations instead of dropping in a bare URL. Well done. 21:29, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It is a legacy of using the 'pedia and the demand there for proper citations. Euromec (talk) 23:11, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Competition: Satirize Alternative Medicine
I'm back and the monthly writing competitions are back baby!

As a general guideline, the satire shouldn't be mistaken as a poe. Make up a detox or testimony or new healing craft or something!

Inspiration:
 * Fun:Nina The Naturopath
 * Seven alternatives to evidence based medicine

Submissions
Essay:Poison is the best Medicine —ClickerClock💾 talk.txt 13:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC) Fun:Cure for Rabies --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:55, 13 January 2019 (UTC) Essay:This New Weight Loss Pill Will MELT Fat Away!!! — 16:06, 14 January 2019 (UTC) Essay:Alternative weaponry --An ordinary human man (talk) 13:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Essay:Doctor C. R.'s MIRACLE cure for EVERYTHING -- Goatspeed. 02:56, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Goat

 * My satire slogan would be this: "It might heal, hurt, do nothing, or even kill you! The fun in alternate medicine lies in the mystery!" But, that's just a slogan. 06:37, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * My slogan would be, "What does not kill me… or makes me weaker… or does nothing, makes me stronger." Bongolian (talk) 18:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

The real satire
Is the corpses we made along the way. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:05, 14 January 2019 (UTC)


 * LOL I heard a joke on the radio today. Time is the best teacher, but it kills all its star students. 10:08, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Poll time!
Poison is the best Medicine Cure for Rabies This New Weight Loss Pill Will MELT Fat Away!!! Alternative weaponry Doctor C. R.'s MIRACLE cure for EVERYTHING

—ClickerClock💾 talk.txt 08:40, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Deport Neo Nazis first. Illegal immigrants can wait.
While immigration laws are necessary, illegal immigrants seem less of a threat compared to Neo Nazis. But immigration laws should be straight forward and not based on a bureaucratic nightmare. I say this after seeing the totally rational and intelligent posts Rationaldriver made recently. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:02, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Believe it or not, neo-Nazis have rights (as do undocumented immigrants). Go ask the ACLU if you don't believe me. Bongolian (talk) 00:20, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I am 100% aware of that. Just making fun of Neo Nazis. The supreme court case Village of Skokie vs. The National Socialist White People's Party cemented that. Nothing wrong with telling a Neo Nazi to shut up. Plus, it is good to beat racism with education. Education is the worst enemy of racism. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:33, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I had a friend who became radicalized by far right propoganda. I always tried to be a good friend to him since I knew he was lonely because of how much of an ass he was to people.  He had a very abusive father, so I figured that was the cause.  Thing is, no amount of information I gave him could overcome his own insane confirmation biases.  He could always write it off as 'jewish meddling of data'.  Education isn't enough when people choose to ignore it.  MirrorIrorriM (talk) 15:42, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, and I want you to consider this one carefully, nazis belong in holes in the ground. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 03:00, 15 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Deport them to where? It's like trying to deport a Cuban; the U.S. doesn't have diplomatic relations and their granted automatic asylum on arrival. There's nowhere to deport them to even after convicted of a crime. nobspiss in my ear 07:15, 15 January 2019 (UTC)


 * You can always go the Holocaust route, except this time it's in reverse. —  Ɖøn Ĵuan  Harass  10:34, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Necromancy? 2A02:C7D:1635:5C00:9E2:3B47:D026:B241 (talk) 14:06, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

"illegal immigrants seem less of a threat compared to Neo Nazis." This kind of claims have no meaning if you do not specify what kind of threat are you considering (acts of violence? Number of homicides? Government overthrow? ...) and what data support your claim. Thinker(unlicensed) 15:52, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "illegal immigrants seem less of a threat compared to Neo Nazis." Implies that illegal immigrant ARE a threat. You might mean to say something RationalZombie, but you certainly seem unable to write it. Resulting in a phrase that is certainly bordering on weasel words. We shall put it in better context, all the way from popular culture in 1982, Jello Biafra in fine fettle as he calmly issues the immortal refrain, Nazi Punks, Fuck Off!!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTs_Q4hEqmA Cardinal Chang (talk) 11:49, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, Rationalzombie articulated Nazi ideology quite well - deporting people from their country of birth. I'll chalk it up to the general confusion of thoughts and paradoxes that pass as belief systems that reign on the Left today. And you wonder why we call Antifa fascists. nobspiss in my ear 03:07, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No rational thought behind the statement, just blind hatred. Just like a real Nazi. nobspiss in my ear 03:14, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


 * "And you wonder why we call Antifa fascists." What the hell are you on about? You clearly have no understanding of what either antifa or fascism are about. And less of the broad stroke descriptions of groups of people. You sure did pick a winner of a user name there, nobs. Cardinal Chang (talk) 10:04, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


 * You should do some opposition research. If your going to oppose people and groups, it would pay to hear what they say. Thanks for confirming my bias about Leftism: Ye protest ye know not what. nobspiss in my ear 10:58, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


 * What nonsense. Site rules prevent me from wording a suitable response, so I shall merely cite Irvine Welsh's description of Jordan Peterson https://twitter.com/irvinewelsh/status/1074958433177214981?lang=en Cardinal Chang (talk) 11:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Rewording what I meant
I originally intended it as a joke. Deport Neo Nazis to the bowels of Hell. By threat, I meant that illegal immigrants are hardly a threat; rarely a drug cartel might sneak in but that is minimal. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:53, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Are illegal and undocumented workers and migrants criminals? You try using a bogus Social Security number and see how far your white privilege gets you. nobspiss in my ear 03:22, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Considering that you can't read, I said minimal threat. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:11, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Like Judeo-Bolsheviks aren't more of a threat. 82.10.143.238 (talk) 20:26, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Where would we send them? What country would want our neonazis? BrogressiveMeninist (talk) 06:16, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Dump Neo Nazis on an island in the south Pacific. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:54, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Discord
Fucking cocksuckers at the Discord muted me for relatively minor transgressions. Have my Internet attorney fighting on my behalf. The RW server is a kangaroo court, I demand a retrial! —  Ɖøn Ĵuan  Harass  16:26, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * People use the Discord's voice chat feature? 16:41, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, perhaps not on the RW 'cord. I do know it's becoming the chat of choice in a WoW session, at least for my guild. Takes too long to type "Get out of the goddamn fire, you idiot!", so being able to scream calmly say it is preferred.Kencolt (talk) 18:12, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Everyone should join the Discord, the link is on the mainpage. 18:42, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I used to be on that server, it was basically everything our opponents portray us to be. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 01:48, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Intelligent critics of pseudoscience and supporters of minority rights? 01:57, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The regressive left is heavy there, IMHO. Bunch o' fucking pricks and cowards. This one user there, /Dev is a fucking jackoff. Gets condescending and dismissive towards people who disagree with him, and then plays the victim whenever called out on his shit. —  Ɖøn Ĵuan  Harass  10:01, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * TBF it's not all bad, there are some decent users there, but the bad one's there kind of ruin the experience. —  Ɖøn Ĵuan  Harass  10:06, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's what ended up making me leave. Also Dev's been doing that since around the beginning. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 13:48, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * And Dev has the gall to call me a jerk, fucking hypocrite. —  Ɖøn Ĵuan  Harass  15:13, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Are these people even members of the wiki? 15:14, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Well now I am, I guess. 15:23, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Apparently not being a dick is too hard of a task. Don't bother going there, complete waste of time. —  Ɖøn Ĵuan  Harass  18:00, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If the Discord is such a problem, why not make a new one (with only members from the wiki and less weebs) and get rid of the old one? Tinribmancer (talk) 21:46, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I like this in theory, but I don't know how many people from this wiki would actually join a discord. It might end up being dead all the time. 22:16, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I hop in and out. So far, everyone's relatively nice and civil to me. Don't like or appreciate shit posting though. 00:19, 23 January 2019 (UTC)


 * You know what on second thought forget what I said. S.H. DeLong (talk) 09:44, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Big Brother
If there was a politicians equivalent of the Big Brother house who should be put into it - for (a) the most interesting results, and (b) the most likely to make the rest of the world a safer place - and how would the latter series develop? Anna Livia (talk) 16:14, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * actual politicians have been on big brother. and i'm a survivor - george gallloay and i forget the name of the other one. Something dorres? AMassiveGay (talk) 16:35, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * i believe anthony scaramucci is also lined for a big brother somewhere AMassiveGay (talk) 16:36, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * What if, instead of "house" we put them in a "guillotine" and instead of "voting them off" we "drop a heavy sharpened blade from 8-10 meters onto their neck" ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:43, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * or just leave them in there for a bit, cut of from the world, and dont turn the cameras on, and instead of a cheering crowd on exit - nothing. they just leave the building. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:47, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Cheering crowds for their severed heads is good cheering crowds tho. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:54, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * but then you wouldnt get george galloway pretend to be cat AMassiveGay (talk) 18:17, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Group (a) are presented with interesting discussion topics (eg the uses of public illiteracy to the state), amusing activities (pretend to be your inner pet creature) and 'random items from the inverse stopped clock selection' (do they fall for it, or develop something interesting?) etc; Group (b) are selected to annoy each other and are given 'tasks that result in resources' that play to their weaknesses. (Can this be developed into a stress-releasing computer game?) Anna Livia (talk) 12:13, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * you could just watch question time. PMQ or the telly show. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:17, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Discord again
That prick Dev is suggesting they age restrict the server, and has also stated that I am incapable of rational discourse, ignoring of course the innumerable times I *have* engaged him in rational discourse. So I think it's safe to say that Dev/ is an ageist prick, no? —  Ɖøn Ĵuan  Harass  14:20, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * So, why don't you leave the server? Heck, my suggestion still stands. Most of the discord are BoN's (according to someone I spoke there about 1-2 years ago (voravicist or something)), weebs & lurkers.


 * We could hold a poll on whether to axe the current one and make a new one, and giving Admin rights to those that are aCTUALLY admin from the wiki or create a whole new one, just for members from the wiki. Tinribmancer (talk) 19:06, 26 January 2019 (UTC)


 * By the way, what's up with those flashy color names that everyone has? Can't remember seeing those in the past... Tinribmancer (talk) 21:42, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Fundy thinking schemes
After having decided to bite the bullet and listening to Fundies (by my standards they're that, and one even acknowledges not to be a Fundy but a radical instead) I've the feeling everything is to give them and their followers the feeling of them being the righteous ones living in a bubble outside the world's evil influences until Jesus comes and are raptured away while everyone else goes to Hell. Exactly as if this still was the 1st century, even with paganism replaced with secularism and other faiths, and because "the book" describes things working that way. Is this correct?. Panzerfaust (talk) 14:24, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, spot on. I attended a baptist (aka fundamentalist, at least the one I went to) church as a child.  All of that, and more insidious things, is par for the course.  —Dorianha Bogelund (talk) 20:05, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Add to that to bolster their beliefs of them being special snowflakes things as the claims of a Fundie that there'll be millions of conversions here, a country that not only is Catholic but also where secularism is on the rise and where most Evangelicanism is restricted to inmigrants, plus other ass-pulls like Christianism being the fastest growing religion, moreso than Islam. Panzerfaust (talk) 00:38, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Ok The Discord
This is getting fucking ridiculous and being told that the centerist mod doesn't care about this ugly fued between Don,and Dev getting out of hand is fucking ridiculous. In my honest opinion Don has been acting like a child. He acts like he's supriour in every way to Dev. He doesn't know how to shut up about this stupid fucking internet drama. I wish FCP could awake and just tell Don to quit it. I think it may be starting to get to Dev. ShiningSwordofThoughts (talk) 20:54, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * @ShiningSwordofThoughts Could you tell me the discord link. I would like to observe what is happening. Commie Lib (talk) 21:10, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

https://discord.gg/qaRBu98 it's on the sidebar,but here. Not currently fighting,but there's probably plenty of examples. ShiningSwordofThoughts (talk) 21:16, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * shouldnt this be dealt with on discord, not here? AMassiveGay (talk) 21:17, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't have complained here if Don's unacceptable behavior was being punished. ShiningSwordofThoughts (talk) 21:31, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

have you ever had a word or a phrase that is just fun to say
recently I've been saying "El-ahrairah" (the name of the rabbit god from "Watership Down") bc it's a rly fun name to say and has an interesting vocal pattern and makes me happy and giggle and flap my hands

anyway does anyone else have fun words or phrases to say or, for that matter, notice and get excited over how certain words sound when you say them? Transbeeism (talk) 01:50, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I used to do the same with "Meester Pigvig." And now I'll probably be doing it again for the next couple weeks. --Mabian (talk) 02:20, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Mine has always been 'Fuck Everything'. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 12:58, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 'shenanigans' is my favourite word.--RWRW (talk) 13:15, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Smock Smock Smock!An ordinary human man (talk) 13:17, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

_______________________ < Fuck Everything > ---     \                _       \              (_)        \   ^__^       / \         \  (oo)\_____/_\ \ (__)\      ) /                ||w ((                ||     ||>>

13:24, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "Fuck morality!" "For Fuck's sake!" "Oh my gods and Goddesses fucking anally and orally above and below!" (That last one is the full version of "Oh my gods" for me.) 14:43, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "Mushroom Kingdom". I also like the word "klaxxon". I also make up some nonsense like "zübédübeka", "cedoolie", "foof", "poogue" and "derfs". 19:15, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Nani? 23:16, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Allahu Akbar, but I'm often misunderstood or misquoted. nobspiss in my ear 03:27, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "oh, ok." "well, it is what it is"  "I get it, but you need to get back to work" Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:24, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Mine's "I have identified myself as trusworthy, so if you need someone you need to be able to trus, I can be trussed (pronounced tru-SEd)". -- Goatspeed. 04:39, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Vietnam vet Nathan Phillips
For who didn't follow the whole story, Nathan Phillips is a Native American who recently got into media attention because of a controversial confrontation with a kid wearing a MAGA hat. I already pointed out that he lied about two important things about the confrontation (he said a kid put himself in front of him, and he said kids where chanting "build that wall"). Now, it turned out that he lied about being a Vietnam veteran!

Business Insider:

"Phillips apparently slipped up in 2018 and claimed that he was "a Vietnam vet" and he was "in theater" during the war - which is categorically false. Here's the full quote, taken from a video of Phillips posted to the Native Youth Alliance Facebook page (9:45 mark): "I'm a Vietnam vet, you know," Phillips said. "I served in the Marine Corps from '72 to '76. I got discharged May 5, 1976. I got honorable discharge and one of the boxes in there shows if you were peacetime or... what my box says that I was in theater. I don't talk much about my Vietnam times. I usually say 'I don't recollect. I don't recall,' you know, those years." In the same video, at around the 23:45 mark, he states, "I got a Section 8 home because I'm a veteran, wartime veteran like that. Honorable, in theater, so I have Section 8 home." Phillips did serve in the Marine Corps from May 20, 1972 until May 5, 1976, according to a Corps spokeswoman, but did not serve anywhere near Vietnam or any theater of war. He had zero deployments and his only award was a National Defense Service Medal. He briefly had the military occupational specialty of 0351 Anti-tank missile-man before being assigned as an 1161 refrigerator technician. "

This guy seems more and more a professional liar, I wonder if he could become material for a RW article. Thinker(unlicensed) 12:35, 26 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I mean sure, Nathan Phillips lied about going to Vietnam and there's no such thing as "Recon Ranger" in the military, but if you wanna red-pill some liberals, maybe try some more interesting material you know. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 17:08, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it's too early to call. I checked Snopes, and it seems that this whole thing was caused by news outlets misunderstanding Phillips saying that he was a "Vietnam-times veteran." He could be a liar, but considering the nature of the accusation, I'm willing to hold off on calling "stolen valor" until we know for sure. 18:25, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * At 9:45 of this video you can clearly hear Phillips saying: "I'm a Vietnam vet, you know." It's all well explained in the Business Insider article I linked in my first post. Thinker(unlicensed) 18:58, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That and the minute after that appears to be pretty damning, I'll admit. 19:02, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * does he claim to be a vietnam vet anywhere else? because if he didn't, this does really prove anything. people say all kinds of things on the spur of the moment if they are feeling threatened. some people will say the have kids and a family (please dont hurt me) others will say they have a black belt so watch out. saying you are a vietnam vet in such situation can be viewed in this context. the recon thingwas apparently taken out of context. he was talking about his work on the reservation.
 * people still believing what they want to believe. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:30, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * though looking at that video, (i thought it was the earlier one) is certainly damning. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:37, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "does he claim to be a vietnam vet anywhere else? because if he didn't, this does really prove anything. people say all kinds of things on the spur of the moment if they are feeling threatened."
 * It's amazing how instead of spending about 5 seconds watching the video (and realizing it was before the Covington school events, and that Phillips claimed to be a Vietnam veteran during a facebook streaming, certantly not under any threat) you rushed in writing a justification for Phillips' lie. Thinker(unlicensed) 22:06, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * did you not see my second comment where i explained that did look at the video? i posted thinking it was the earlier one, but as soon as i did, i thought better check. and i wsnt justifying anything - i was saying that you cant jump to conclusions when there multiple interpretations of the same seaqueance of events, where conflicting accounts are not a result of lies but of perspective and interpretation. what the ever really and definitively happened, is ultimately uninteresting to me - its as you yourself pointed out - its the suspect reporting and peoples 'outrage' at anything, no matter how insignificant, without stepping back to consider what really happened. its like every disagreement is a deadly slur, every argument must be shouted down, where everything must be questioned, no point will be conceded, no matter how insignificant, with no quarter given. it doesnt even matter what the argument is - if the other side is making it, no mater how logical, how reasoned, good or bad, what ever the strength of the argument, we must lie, and twist, and stretch - anything to drive the enemy from the field. its maddening. probably purposely. victory seems to be when one side just cant be arsed to respond to shameless lie or willful misinterpretation. victories must seem hollow if they come not from the strength of your argument but from your tolerence of lies and bullshit. i guess when the other side is dispicable and alway wrong, you dont have to consider if they have a point - just shut them down anyway you can. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:34, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Phillips lied, period. I wonder if and when Snopes will update its entry about it: Did Nathan Phillips Falsely Claim He Was a Vietnam Veteran?, still says "Unproven". Thinker(unlicensed) 08:44, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * We are apparently in the "character assassination" phase of this story, I guess. So this guy made a "job interview" style lie (over-exaggeration of actual accomplishments). But this seems to be nitpicking. Is this any worse than both of the "Christian" groups involved in this story, who seem to call themselves that word but do not understand the text behind what that word means? This seems quite irrelevant to a story whose core is all about asshole behavior.Soundwave106 (talk) 13:49, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "This seems quite irrelevant to a story..."
 * ...and indeed I never claimed that Phillips is more or less wrong about the "Convington's events" because he lied about being a Vietnam veteran on a Facebook streaming. Those are two separate things. Thinker(unlicensed) 15:34, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

WTF is with the discord?
Few questions, since I went on an investigation:

1. Why does the discord have a porn channel?

2. Is this what this is all about? What Don Juan said (I presume his name is Unicorn over there?)?

3. Why does the memberlist look like a fucking crayonbook (seriously, do we need this many colors?)?

4. Why is there an "IrrationalWiki" channel?

5. What's with the Centrist hatred?

Seriously, that place could be a clone from Kiwifarms minus the doxing. Tinribmancer (talk) 22:10, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, so who's the Discord mod? RoninMacbeth (talk) 22:41, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Anarklubbing, Mkbw50 & N7.Geth. And I think "Junior Cop" stand for Mod too (????), so that makes harbreger tax a mod aswell.


 * Oh, and apparently there's a transbasher active at this moment that keeps getting ranks, instead of being banned (several members have asked this, including Don Juan) by the admins. Tinribmancer (talk) 22:47, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * So how fucked is the Discord server? RoninMacbeth (talk) 22:58, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Lot's of shitposting. The Transbasher got banned by Anarklubbing (took him long enough, 2 hours and 12 min.) and his explanation was "I was waiting for his next message to see if it annoyed me or not

and it did".


 * And this is Don Juan's "rank": https://i.ibb.co/gMZqVqS/Don-Juan-s-ranks.png
 * Some of those are really stupid...


 * And the feud between him and Buckbean's Benis has died, thanks to that guy. Tinribmancer (talk) 23:18, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * So basically just like here, but with fewer rules.
 * OK, how about this: if drama from Discord gets imported here to the point of disruption of main-site business, then the mods here will treat it like regular drama here? RoninMacbeth (talk) 23:22, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that would depend on the drama. Tinribmancer (talk) 23:49, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Just as a note, the "transbasher" is probably Enchanted13 with his bad hand accounts. 71.215.77.190 (talk) 04:50, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't think I would've complained if fcp wasn't basically dead (really inactive). ShiningSwordofThoughts (talk) 23:34, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm more surprised that none of the admins from here are mods over there, like Christopher or David Gerard. Tinribmancer (talk) 23:49, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Perhaps we should select one of the mods or techs to represent the main site as a moderator on the Discord. Personally, I'd want Spud to do it. He seems reasonable and level-headed enough to keep his cool but still keep things tidy. RoninMacbeth (talk) 00:05, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * is an admin here as well. And yes, I go by Unicorn there.  Ɖøn Ĵuan   To Harass and Intimidate  01:29, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

made the IrrationalWiki server, made all those roles,  is both an admin here and a mod there, and yes, my name is Unicorn over at the Discord. —  Ɖøn Ĵuan  To Harass and Intimidate  01:57, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, some of the roles are added automatically, and that Transphobe was sent to the Pit where all trolls go, but eventually we had enough of his shit and banned him anyways. —  Ɖøn Ĵuan  To Harass and Intimidate  02:15, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Why am I an ass? Tinribmancer (talk) 14:14, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Answers as far as I can provide:

1. Content that isn't safe for work isn't necessarily porn

2. No idea

3. Who cares

4. The magic of discord allows you to name your own personal sever whatever you want, I could make one named "rational-er wiki" if I really wanted.

5. I don't think rationalwiki itself is very fond of centrism, although it's definitely not nearly as far to the left as most users on the discord. megalodon (talk)


 * The NSFW channels are not p0rn channels, although I relinquished access to them yesterday so who knows?  11:43, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

So basically, if you don't take a side, you're scum... Good to know.. Tinribmancer (talk) 13:49, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know what brought you to that conclusion, but okay, I guess. —  Ɖøn Ĵuan  To Harass and Intimidate  15:00, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * ...that's not "Centrism", but okay. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 21:58, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Carlos
Is it a dog? 68.0.189.224 (talk) 06:25, 27 January 2019 (UTC)


 * A Jackal. 12:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Or this Carlos. Anna Livia (talk) 20:33, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Banner
On the 'Recent Changes' is the banner 'PROULY FUNDIGD AN CONTROLED BY GEORG SOROS' intentionally mis-spelt? Anna Livia (talk) 10:16, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yess! Spud (talk) 12:04, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Also all caps for effect. 12:12, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 'Just asking questions' :) Anna Livia (talk) 20:35, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , Click on the link and you'll see why it's CAPS & misspelled. Bongolian (talk) 06:15, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Banner not there at the moment - something to do with the Hungarian politician?
 * Occasionally 'the gremlins of autocorrect etc' do something without being noticed and/or display a sense of humour. Anna Livia (talk) 10:28, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Burn. —  Ɖøn Ĵuan  To Harass and Intimidate  11:58, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Do you think Psychiatry will be absorbed into Neurology?
Considering the advancements in Neuro research and knowing the biological basis of mental illness, I think so. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:10, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you think medicine will be absorbed into anatomy? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:46, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it's fair to say the opposite: Anatomy is a part of medicine. Now, is it possible for psychiatry to be "absorbed" by neurology? There seems to be some debate about it. Neurology seems to be more focused on the external forces working on the brain whereas psychiatry seems to be focused on the brain as it stands and behavioral correction.TheTallMass (talk) 21:09, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Venezuela
So it appears Venezuela has two presidents now. On the one hand, Maduro is absolutely corrupt and needs to go yesterday. On the other hand, anyone who draws the unequivocal support of Trump and fucking Bolsonaro is a little bit suspicious in my book. What do you think? RoninMacbeth (talk) 15:14, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I think I'd like to throw my hat in the ring and declare myself president of Venezuela. Maybe I'll go for antipope while I'm at it. 15:17, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't forget support from Cuba and criticisms from other Latin American countries and the U.N. (More here.) Other than that, I could not care less about that country and I think most people and countries shouldn't either. Nerd (talk) 15:20, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * He's also endorsed by Canada. 15:23, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * And the European Union. While we are at it, oil sanctions sound good. That country is heavily dependent on oil exports. Nerd (talk) 15:27, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Somehow, I don't think a country already facing economic collapse and constant murder in the streets would improve from sanctions. Do we actually expect that Maduro would somehow retire if sanctions go through? CoryUsar (talk) 00:57, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Maduro and his authoritarian social democracy is pretty bad, but whatever fashy piece of shit the US wants to put in is probably worse judging by the general history in the region. 'Legion what do you want from me  09:40, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Sanctions exist to keep dictators in power because people like Trump need dictators in other countries. With sanctions against the likes of Saddam, people spoke openly of "containment", not regime change - keep them in power but weak. The number of regimes toppled by sanctions is minimal (people claim it worked on South Africa but they also lost a lengthy war in Angola and Namibia and faced vast internal unrest and other pressures, and if sanctions do have an effect they're more effective on international-facing capitalist countries than on batten-down-the-hatches command economies, and require near-100% application, which definitely won't happen to Venezuela.) --Annanoon (talk) 09:49, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I'll have to both agree and disagree with you on that. Obviously sanctions haven't removed people like the Kims from power, but North Korea and other autocratic countries with sanctions put on them tend to be desperate to be relieved of those sanctions after a while. —  Ɖøn Ĵuan  Harass  10:04, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * sanctions on North Korea are about limiting the threat it poses. they are not about regime change. if Kim 'caves in' he still gets to be in charge. What purpose would they serve in venezuela beyond precipitating a war? maduro is not going to go quietly, and hes not without support - locally and internationally. they'll still have buyers for oil. they'll still find arms to prop up the government and terrorise its citizens. Maduro doesnt strike me as squeamish.
 * i certainly dont have an answer for any of this and i dont know that sanctions are the wrong idea. and i dont know what other options there are. i understand that maduro's support dwindling. if thats rapid enough, perhaps sanctions would be the push that sees him removed peacefully. if not, it could get messy. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:50, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * has a good point here. Sanctions aren't intended to topple regimes, only incentives to change behavior. Furthermore, distancing oneself from oppressive regimes is a good idea. Nerd (talk) 16:23, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Venezuela is in pandemonium right now. I see another Syria in the making. —  Ɖøn Ĵuan  Harass  17:17, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Civil war sadly seems pretty likely. 17:23, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree, everyone is too hungry to even fight and the people with the initiative/drive to join/create an army were the first to emigrate before the shit hit the fan. CoryUsar (talk) 07:50, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Nothing stopping them from going back, you know. With a good helping of foreign backing no doubt. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 08:04, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Gen Z
Is it just me or is Gen Z more right leaning than is typical for the age group? Alec (talk) 18:07, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I dunno. I think most of them try to stand up straight. Alcohol or marijuana may have an effect on that though.TheTallMass (talk) 18:18, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Empirical evidence says no. Boomers and gen-x were radically right wing compared to american history at all ages.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:27, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Are they Z-shaped perhaps?
 * And what will come after them? Anna Livia (talk) 18:35, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, let's get all-inclusive. We haven't used the Greek or Cyrillic alphabets yet in our endless quest to label everything semi-sociological.  (Physics, yes, for the Greek, but generations don't seem to operate on particle physics.)  One might also suggest Japanese Katakana.  Or Hiragana for that matter, which has the same names (a problem) but looks entirely different (an advantage).  After that we can start on Hangul, and then we can get all historic and try Demotic, Hieroglyphic, and even-- dare I say it?  I dare-- Cuneiform.


 * Might want to hold off on Hebraic, though. A fair number of people are annoyed with Israel, and the average Far-right fellow isn't gonna want no Jewish letters slapped on his generations.  Nobodies going to be happy there. Kencolt (talk) 18:49, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * What about Mayan hieroglyphs, or Chinese characters, or the Linear B script? —  Ɖøn Ĵuan  Harass  10:06, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * As a millenial who knows people out of Gen Z, I would definitely say Gen Z is more right wing than Gen Y. Conspirate (talk) 21:32, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't judge an entire generation based off a few people you know. 68.0.189.224 (talk) 00:20, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Apparently we line up with Millennials on quite a few issues. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 00:33, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

i know who gen x are, i know who baby boomers are, and i know who millenials are. who are gen y, who are gen z, and why do we keep writing off huge swathes of people based on the broadest of the broad criteria such as an entire age group? its almost as bad as making assumptions from someones star sign though thats probably less broad, and libras are a real cunts. AMassiveGay (talk) 01:10, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * What about Aries? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 05:50, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * they can do one AMassiveGay (talk) 06:43, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Being a Scorpio, I find myself in the delightful state of not giving a shit. Kencolt (talk) 07:01, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Some things only become apparent some time afterwards - like the intonations used in 'films & TV programs etc of a certain age.' Anna Livia (talk) 10:16, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "why do we keep writing off huge swathes of people based on the broadest of the broad criteria such as an entire age group?"
 * I agree that this generation something thing doesn't make sense. Looking at the narrowest definitions of these generations, their birth years have a 10 years span... conflating people with just a 5 years difference is absurd. Thinker(unlicensed) 14:42, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * They will be given a name once they develop a sufficiently distinct taste in music/clothing/other things' to show the rest of us that we are no longer 'cool.' This will be at about the point when one can say that 'doesn't that recorded voice (film, TV program etc) sound so early 2000s?' Anna Livia (talk) 15:08, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * and while we at it, it seem to go x,y, millenial, z. fucking millenials, allways fucking things up. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:53, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * What AMassiveGay said pretty much lines up with what I've seen, especially since the Parkland shooting. They've turned out to be pretty similar to millennials in their political leanings, if not moreso; their views on Trump are just as disapproving as those of their older siblings, their views on racial and ethnic diversity are just as supportive, and their economic views are, if anything, even more left-leaning. In the 2018 midterms, voters age 18-29 went Democratic by a margin of 67-32, dwarfing the share that Obama won in both of his campaigns (back when Gen-Z wasn't old enough to vote), and even among white voters it was a 57-42 landslide. The idea that they're more right-wing comes less from actual evidence and more, I feel, from millennials who don't want to admit that their generation isn't as progressive as they think, and are instead projecting onto the next one. The alt-right got its start with millennials; most of the young men who marched at Charlottesville were in that cohort, and Richard Spencer, I think, said that his typical follower was a tech worker in his late twenties.
 * Politically speaking, Gen-Z comes across to me like a mirror version of the baby boomers, the generation whose left-wing activists grabbed all the notoriety but who were, on the whole, always more conservative than their parents — and not just after they "sold out" in the Reagan years, but back in the '60s and '70s themselves. They supported the Vietnam War at higher rates than their parents did, George Wallace won a lot of his support from young men, and in 1968, Richard Nixon ran a youth-focused campaign not too dissimilar from Barack Obama's in 2008. The prophets of the New Left and hippiedom may have spoken of the baby boomers then as the generation that would bring about a new age of left-wing politics, but it was called a counterculture for a reason: it ran in opposition to the mainstream society of their peers. We learn about the Students for a Democratic Society, but forget about the Young Americans for Freedom. It's the same thing now with the alt-right. I bet that, twenty years from now, right-wingers are gonna tell the same myth about Gen-Z that left-wingers told about the baby boomers, bemoaning how they "sold out" and "cucked" to the establishment while ignoring the vast majority who leaned left.
 * One caveat, though: the above only applies to the Anglosphere, and the US especially. In Russia, the teenagers are, by all accounts, more right-wing, owing to them only knowing of life before Putin from their parents' stories of the crumbling of the Soviet Union and the deprivation that followed in the '90s. And in mainland Europe, they also form a key base of support for far-right parties. (The UK, as per usual, is different; there, opposition to Brexit and right-wing populism is concentrated among the young.) KevinR1990 (talk) 09:26, 27 January 2019 (UTC)


 * No, I don’t think that American Interest article supports the sweeping claim that the youth in ”mainland Europe” are ”a key base of support for far- right parties”. The Netherlands’ example used highlights that 21 percent of the youth vote went to the VVD (not a “far right” party) and that this was the same as for Wilders’ mob (definitely a far right party), but that meant that 58 percent of the youth vote went to other parties than these two.


 * Similarly, the Norbert Hofer example from Austria cites only the high proportion of young (60 percent of those under 29) men who voted for him. For instance, this particular demographic (men under 29 or 30) also forms the basis for the sole attempt at a (Beltway) libertarian party in Denmark, a party that managed to garner a whopping 7.5 percent of the vote at the latest (2015) general election (and is currently polling worse), became the 5th largest in parliament, but just behind the most left wing party in the Danish parliament in an election that the centre right coalition won overall (and in which the Danish People's Party became the second largest party). Basically, using the trend among young men as a basis for the trend among youth is not particularly convincing.


 * The article’s Greek numbers are not even about the youth being right wing at all, but about Euroscepticism (and that definitely comes in a left wing vintage as well). This, incidentally, is why you need to be careful about separating left/right issues from Europhile/Eurosceptic issues in general.


 * Even worse are the French numbers cited which clearly states that Melenchon was the most popular candidate among the youth during the first round of the 2017 French presidential elections, garnering 30 percent of the votes of the youngest voters (18-24) and 24 percent among the second youngest voters (25-34), compared to Le Pen’s 21 percent and 24 percent and with Macron being the most popular among the latter group. Not to mention that the Melenchon group went for Macron, not Le Pen, in the second round, boosting Macron’s share among the youngest voters to 60 percent according to the article itself.


 * The numbers for Slovakia seems to hold up as only garnered just over 8 percent of the general vote (but a quarter of those from first time voters, according to the article), but without additional details, using this as a base to claim that the youth of Slovakia has turned hard right is tentative at best, but the article makes the even more sweeping claim that it is indicative of the entirety of the youth of ”Central and Eastern Europe”. Complicating factors as regards the youth of Slovakia and their votes include whether turnout is particularly low among first time voters (a tendency that would likely lead to the more “motivated” fringe party supporters constituting a larger share of the youth vote), whether these first time voters were even particularly young (turnout has been below 60% from the 2006 election, so plenty of older voters might be first timers), and of course what the other three quarters of (young?) first time voters voted for.


 * So, is the youth in “mainland Europe” (whatever that is...) becoming more right wing? I don’t know, but neither does the author of that article, apparently... ScepticWombat (talk) 07:55, 29 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Oh, and a straight up comparison between general election results in the UK and those in the rest of Europe is of course complicated by the particular UK electoral system (first past the post) which generally tends to favour tactical voting to a larger extent than the various proportional electoral systems prevalent in the rest of Europe. ScepticWombat (talk) 08:11, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

I remember when I was a kid and saw a movie set
I was about 8 years old at the time. One night I stepped on the front porch with my family and saw something going on down the street. We found out some film crew was making a movie. The director went house to house telling everyone to be quiet. None of the neighbors nor my mom listened. The film director kept getting mad so my family and the other neighbors decided to get louder.

The movie filmed was called An Ordinary Killer, which by the way, the movie sucked. Here is a link-

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0307292/

--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:07, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * where i live in london is used for locations all the time. the last one i saw them do was legend. they used the next street over as the krays house. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:14, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * My only experience is seeing a film crew film a scene for Midsomer Murders round the corner from my house (nothing particularly interesting happens where I live)--RWRW (talk) 18:56, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The exterior of the school where I work was used as the exterior of a man character's house in a Taiwanese TV drama a few years ago. It was very exciting for some of my students, who got to meet some local stars and got their autographs. All the filming was done in a day and it really didn't have any impact on me at all. Spud (talk) 04:48, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The school where I went to middle school at was used as the film set for the new Jeffrey Dahmer movie. —  Ɖøn Ĵuan  To Harass and Intimidate  13:49, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * My neighborhood got the misfortune of a shitty movie. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:36, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * they are filming somethin something for the tv show pennyworth as we speak over here AMassiveGay (talk) 14:18, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Chinese concentration camps
So... there doesn't seem to be much information available regarding the concentration camps where anywhere from hundreds of thousands to several million various "terrorists" have disappeared in western China. If ever there was a modern day human rights crisis, this is it. I'm tempted to start an article here, but, well, lack of information and all. I don't want to use just vague news snippets. Where would we even begin with this thing? CoryUsar (talk) 08:06, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * There are some in-depth articles on the camps. The Wikipedia article is actually rather lengthy with a lot of references . There's also background information on their antecedent, laojiao . Bongolian (talk) 08:16, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

If a psychiatrist figured out Trump' psychopathology, they would get a book deal and be on the talk show circuit for awhile
I doubt anybody could figure out how Trump's brain works. I intend this post mainly as a joke post. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 15:43, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Is this not the case already?TheTallMass (talk) 15:54, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Donald Trump scores top marks in Montreal cognitive test. --RWRW (talk) 15:58, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "The test does not assess the president’s psychiatric fitness and the president did not undergo a psychiatric evaluation, according to his doctor." I dunno that that test would really qualify in this circumstance.TheTallMass (talk) 16:04, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * could it be, and stop me if i get too technical here, he's just an egregious prick? AMassiveGay (talk) 16:51, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not like one has to be a genius to figure this out. Trump falls somewhere in the (narcissism-Machiavellianism-psychopathy). Bongolian (talk) 22:50, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't put that as "genius" per se, though I've personally never heard of the Dark Triad until now. Thanks for the info.TheTallMass (talk) 23:34, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * didn't we already discuss this whole "armchair psychology of far-right authoritarian leaders only serves to pass the buck onto neuroatypical people who are usually targeted by their regimes and ultimately serves to stigmatize mental illness and absolve neurotypical people of the actions of said far-right authoritarian leaders while doing nothing effective against them" thing back with hitler like a week ago?24.120.253.250 (talk) 23:51, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * yes, and calling it "it's just a joke" is still part of the problem 00:34, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * What do you mean "it's just a joke"? What is wrong with a joke? Or is this like ra*p jokes situation? Commie Lib (talk) 00:41, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I was actually referencing the science fiction novel The Dragon Factory by Jonathan Mayberry. I did not intend to be a serious political discussion. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 02:31, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * you were assuming a psychopathology in the guy in the first place. it may have been just a reference or a joke, but who does it actually hurt? not the president, that's for sure. it only encourages stigmatization of mental illness, especially the varieties specifically discussed by said armchair psychs. it's like making fat jokes at the president. the president is the subject, sure, but the punchline and the ones that are stigmatized are fat people. or that whole "trump and putin are secretly gay for each other" meme that corncob twitter seems to think is funny. it doesn't affect relations between Russia and the USA, it only blames a couple historically anti-queer politicians, and especially their anti-queer positions, on closeted queerness. if you're going to target assholes for a joke, make sure you're actually targeting assholes. punch up not down. 24.120.253.250 (talk) 04:33, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You know how funny it is to hear people who vote Democrat cause they promise a $15 hr minimum wage call Trump stupid? nobspiss in my ear 00:00, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * inflation and artificially increased costs of basic essentials by corporate boards seeking to create value for shareholders to the exclusion of all else make that minimum wage literally the lowest that could possibly be considered a 'living wage' at 40 hours a week across the entire nation, so idk about your qualifications to speak on economics, conservapedia troll.
 * but you do have a point. that center-right democrats are targeting assholes for a joke and punching down in the process.
 * the issue with trump isn't intelligence, it's his support of disastrous far-right economic policies that have demonstrably dismantled the rights of workers in the past and only serve to deliver profits to his fellow rent-seeking capital-inheritors (artificially inflating the GDP relative to worker buying power and productivity) when the world is literally burning, his support of authoritarian regimes around the world and personal emulation of authoritarianism, his support of white nationalism that regardless of sincerity signal to sincere white nationalists that they are free to do whatever they want, his isolationist politics that have through the banality of evil created literal concentration camps in the united states because 'the illegals have to be kept away' but they can't just ship them to a remote island, and his actions in service to known extremist evangelical groups to dismantle the hard-fought rights of women, queer people, non-white people and non-Christians.
 * calling him 'stupid' does nothing to stop his destructive, demonstrably harmful policies that at this point have a higher body count than any attack on the united states. it only creates a false equivalence between malice towards and willful ignorance and callousness towards the plights of trump's subjects and the developmentally disabled. whether or not trump is stupid is ultimately irrelevant, it's the harm he does that is. 24.120.253.250 (talk) 03:59, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Were a psychiatrist to find anything wrong with Trump (and that’s not a given), he probably would dismiss it as fake news. It would have the side effect of winning him the Scientologist vote though.... —  python coder    (talk &#124; contribs) 00:16, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Mark Zuckerberg is a Transformer
And he's transforming into a whiny emo teenager! "NOBODY UNDERSTANDS!" Towards-the Unknown (talk) 19:46, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You can't really transform into something you already are. Tinribmancer (talk) 00:15, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * He was always a whiny emo teenager? TIL. Towards-the Unknown (talk) 15:25, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Been meaning to discuss this but not sure how to word the title
Basically it is when Christians argue that their denomination is the right way. I find it rediculus that Christians actually fight over petty differences in their religion.

An example in popular culture is The Simpson's episode "The Father, The Son and the Holy Guest Star". In said episode Bart Simpson gets expelled from school for a prank he didn't do. Now later in the episode Bart Simpson goes to Catholic school. Bart ends up getting better grades and was staying out of trouble; he also starts following the Catholic Church. Marge Simpson gets mad that Bart is following her brand of Christianity.

Anyways, my point is that each brand of Christianity is still Christianity. No need to argue over something that trivial. CEO of Undead EAS Productions --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 02:28, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * But that's the thing. To Christians, the seemingly insignificant doctrinal differences do matter. When your immortal soul is at stake, suddenly tiny differences in religion matter a lot more. RoninMacbeth (talk) 02:42, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed, have you heard of the monophysite schism? It is the most esoteric fight ever. Commie Lib (talk) 02:52, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The same argument can be made about Sunni vs Shia Islam, or the various sects of Buddhism, or any of a dozen religious groups that operate under the results of schism. Heck, there's less difference between Shia and Sunni Islam than there is between Catholic and (the vast majority of) Protestant Christianity-- but those minor differences tend to lead to open riots, state repression of one or the other version, and in some cases calls for wholesale execution of any and all members of the "other" sect.
 * What you're missing here, really is that they are only the same in broad strokes... God sent us Jesus, Jesus said a lot of nice things, the Romans, or the Jewish Priesthood, or maybe both got pissed at Jesus and had him nailed to a tree or the like, he died, and got better. For (most) of Christianity, yes... those are constants.
 * But the details can be pretty damn divisive. The Catholic Church, for example, has the doctrine of Papal Infallibility.  The Protestant churches tend to respond to that with "Like we're gonna let some old fucktard in Rome tell US the Will of God-- and everything else".  This tends to be a pretty big difference-- both in theory and practice.
 * Simply lumping dozens of sects-- some similar and some quite variant-- under a common homogeneous lump called "Christianity" is like grabbing all the different beers and wines together and calling them "Booze". Both may be alcoholic drinks, but few would suggest that there's no difference between a Burgundy and a Budweiser.  The distinction is meaningless only to a non-drinker, or prohibitionist... which in this case is analogous to the case of the non-believer or the antitheist. Kencolt (talk) 02:57, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I am a Christian, but I could never be a Roman Catholic. I would not be willing to join a church that had a Pope, or any other leader claiming to be infallible.  I would not join a church with an anti-democratic 'hierarchical constitution' that Roman Catholicism has.   I will not join a church that claims its leaders are a spiritual hierarchy, inherently holier than the rest of us.  Clerical celibacy is a total dumpster fire, a problem waiting to happen, and now it has.  I would not join a church that ascribed powers to blessed water  or the bones of saints.  I would not join a church that authorized prayers to a large pantheon of the spirits of the dead promoted to quasi-deities.  God has given us at least some guidance as to how He wants to be worshipped; none of that stuff is on the list. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 03:49, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Who wants to start a war of smiting against the FSMists who claim his appendages are small sized spaghetti as apposed to the more obvious medium sized spaghetti? Their blasphemy is unbearably painful to listen to...and insulting to the glorious flying spaghetti monster and insulting to true believers like us. It just creates discord and doubt in the minds of faithful obedient FSMists. Their evil must be smitten. Shabi DOO  18:05, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * What you're missing is that petty differences, when specifically about the absolute nature of everything and morality, are huge differences. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 22:08, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Precisely. Doctrinal variances, definitions of the Godhead, even defining the nature of God (And there is by no mean an absolute consensus on that!) are all factors to strife between sects.  To most of the commenters here, yeah, it may seem a minor, even pointless thing.  But to the practitioners of the various religions-- ALL the various religions-- it is key, it is important, and it is far from petty.  And since, like it or not, that more or less includes the majority of human beings on the planet, it is, and will for the foreseeable future remain to be, significant. Kencolt (talk) 23:03, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * While I won't deny it's a large number, last known estimates of Christianity are around 33% of the global population. Not what I would call a majority. I agree that this does matter to the practitioners of Christianity, but unless this breaks out into a holy war, I'd still call it an insignificant blip on the radar of things that are.TheTallMass (talk) 23:54, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I did not say Christianity. I said religion.  That includes Judaism and Islam (which has a major effect on the Middle East, rather a lot of Europe and Asia, and Africa-- mostly Islamic things there).  Also Buddhism (things are happening with that in Asia), Hinduism (India, which is a BIG honking part of Asia), etc.  In fact, about the only sizable religion I can think of that doesn't have a major impact outside of it's source is Shinto-- and that's only because Shinto never really spread much from Japan and never really codified anything-- except perhaps during the decades just before WW2.  Religion is everywhere, and affects pretty much everything in some way.  But even were I to refer solely to Christianity, 33% is 33%-- one third of the population of the world-- which is far from insignificant.  And it in no way requires a Holy War to be of impact-- it's effects on laws, cultural mores, language, you can name almost anything in the Western World.  Rome may not have the political power it once had, but the faith that came out of it-- and all its variants-- affect us daily, if only as something to look at and wonder why it's such a big deal for some people... who are guided by the base precepts it forged.


 * Ignore this at your peril... and if the Domnionists were to have their way, at the stake as well. Kencolt (talk) 00:30, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You'll have to forgive me then. The OP referred to Christianity and your statement of "the various religions" seemed to draw upon that as its root, especially given the surrounding conversations. And yes, that 33% would be significant if they could all agree on things.TheTallMass (talk) 00:56, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

New articles by Annanoon
Thank you, for the excellent and wide-ranging new articles that you have created: Anyone who's interested, please have a look and edit if you feel knowledgeable. Also, may this serve as a reminder, please make an announcement in the Saloon when you move Draft space articles into Main space: they don't show up as new Main space articles when you do that. Bongolian (talk) 08:01, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Luke the Evangelist
 * Grenfell Tower fire
 * Charles Lindbergh
 * Spiked
 * Catholic Apostolic Church
 * William Dudley Pelley
 * The Simpsons
 * Combat 18
 * Mount Shasta
 * Scott Morrison
 * Added a reference on lenticular clouds (which are the aforementioned lens-shaped clouds) on Mount Shasta article. Towards-the Unknown (talk) 15:56, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Added a section on the significance of Mt. Shasta in Scientology, and underscored the fact that it's an active volcano that has erupted in historical times. If you want to worship it, you'd better be a virgin. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 04:19, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Walk for Life
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmuWwGD_YHk&t=298

A guy tries to make the simple argument: "If death is established by (the absence of) brain waves, wouldn't that be a rational standard for being a living human being?" at the Walk for Life in San Francisco, but the protesters don't even understand what brain waves are. Thinker(unlicensed) 12:59, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * There's substantial overlap between the right-to-lifers and the keep-the-brain-dead-alivers (e.g., Terri Schiavo case), so it's not surprising. Bongolian (talk) 18:21, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Wool Woo
I ran into a few people today discussing the healing benefits of wool, how it can cure all of the basic list of things. I don't think we have a page here on it. Interestingly enough, the most insane claim was that wool was neutrally charged and "grounded" one to the Earth, enabling free radical woo things. Has anyone else seen this before? Coyote9 (talk) 03:45, 30 January 2019 (UTC) Signed By Coyote9 03:45, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No I haven't, but I can say with a degree of certainty that wool socks are not neutrally charged after a short walk on carpet. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 07:45, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If wool has such wonderful health benefits, why do sheep get sick? Nowhere Man (talk) 11:56, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Cell phone towers, duh. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:41, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Are these 'the real sheeple'?
 * Can I mention this chap - who probably justifies a mention somewhere on RW.
 * Perhaps a 'clothing woo' page on RW (which might include a reference to the biblical 'Woman clothed in the Sun'). Anna Livia (talk) 16:52, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know much about wool other than that you definitely have to be grounded if you're working with electronics bc the static is definitely not good for them. also adding that to my 'fun words to say' list. woooool woooolly Transbeeism (talk) 00:11, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I have a really nice wool sweater, brand is Blarney Woolen Mills, beautiful knitting up the chest side. My mom gave it to me years ago when I went on a cross-country trip to Yosemite, and she has always made sure I have it if I go camping.  It's perfect, either keeps me warm or works as a pillow.  Found out later that in Ireland/Scotland, bodies of fishermen that washed back up on shore were identified by their wool shirt knitting.  Thanks for the vote of confidence, Mom.
 * Now I either wear it or use it as a pillow when I'm off on a trip. It always goes with me.  It's not magic.Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:06, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Palaeonictis...
...for creating these wide-ranged and varied articles:
 * Richard Owen
 * K-Pg extinction event
 * Executive order
 * Emanuel Swedenborg
 * Palaeocene

And thank you, Palaeonictis, for substantially improving these articles:
 * Thomas Henry Huxley
 * Annotated Bible
 * Basilosaurus
 * Mark Twain
 * List of transitional fossils
 * Clades conspicuously absent from cryptozoologist and creationist discourse

Where's my golden sticker, ? Huh, HUH?!

Okay, shameless self promoting and whining over. —  Palaeonictis  Fossil beds  16:39, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I am impressed by the Executive order article. Not too long but informative. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:45, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You've now received your medal of honor. Thank you for your high-quality contributions. You've actually been here almost as long as I have: coming up on 5 years later this year. Bongolian (talk) 17:55, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Wow, holy shit, . This entire section was meant to be in jest, but thank you nevertheless. —  Palaeonictis  Fossil beds  19:03, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I like the in-depth structure. Keep up the good work. This is an Emergency Action Termination --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 19:38, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I`m curious to see what you mean by "in-depth structure" and which article you are referring to. —  Palaeonictis  Fossil beds  21:20, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Emanuel Swedenborg and Executive order. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 21:51, 31 January 2019 (UTC)