RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive392

getting the Good Smoke rings
@individuals who also vape or smoke: how tf I get the smoke rings to look good. I put the vapour in back my mouth, tongue at top my mouth, lips in an O, push a bit the vapour out. Problem is that my smoke rings look like shit. They’re not round enough, too messy. Anyone have any Pro Techniques to make them good???, I have considered to become a Professional Vape Artist some day (legit u can get sponsorships and win competitions if u vape real good). Please help me achieve this dream 04:04, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Obligatory John Waters PSA: Bongolian (talk) 06:36, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * lmao nice. also tbf I haven’t smoked in ages. Cigarettes taste like ass and make me sick and get the bad coughs. My country making vapin illegal soon tho so I guess I’ll have to either get rid of my nic habit or go back to those Stinky Leaf Boys 06:41, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

This is a thing.........................
https://2020electionirregularities.com/

Welcome to 2020 Voting Irregularities! The website dedicated to spewing distortions about the 2020 US Presidential Election. This should make an interesting article. --Tgal (talk) 00:58, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Mauvaise Foi
I'm not one to obsess over some statues being removed, though I do question the necessity to prioritize what appears to be acute political correctness when COVID-19 still ought to be the main focus. And this is given that Byrd wouldn't even qualify as being among the worst Southern racists of his time (people are quick to forget that he played a direct role in ending lynchings in Virginia).

What I do find interesting and ironic is Governor Northam's praising the removal of Byrd's statue to pitch himself as an inclusive and tolerant man when literally everyone knows about his offensively racist yearbook picture. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 02:51, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, how dare we remove statues venerating people who supported Segregation. Oh what will happen to society if we grow out of idle fantasy and recognize the folly of such men? Truly terrible. 02:56, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I do notice that the advocates of segregation nowadays are fringe college leftists who support separate graduations for blacks and likely other minorities, so... UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 03:00, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Citation? Besides your ass, of course. 03:06, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Here's more info about the anti-lynching law of 1928 Byrd signed as governor of Virginia. Here's  evidence of left-wing college bums supporting segregation. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 03:20, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You ought to rename yourself to something more fitting, as suggested earlier. Why did you unironically share a bloody PragerU video? I wonder what other kind of crap media did you consume for that odor? 03:23, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you have anything to add better than ad hominem attacks? UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 03:30, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No, because your posts aren't better. 03:32, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * So you admit the quiet part out loud. That's at least good to know. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 03:34, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Your posts don't cross the bar that earns quality posts from me. That's not a good thing when I admit I post crap, since it's apt crap. 03:35, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Cite a real source. I already told you not to use your ass. 03:47, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Your dislike of sufficient sources that address the facts is your problem, not mine. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 03:49, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You want to be a little shit, I'll treat you like one. 03:55, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Prager is a laughable source. Just try Ctrl-F'ing them in the clogs collection for some good larfs. 04:29, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Prager? Seriously? Zheeeeesh Shabi  DOO  06:04, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

The ultimate weapon ever created was not the nuclear bomb
It is Lego blocks. Those things hurt like Hell when you step on them and they are easier to hide than a nuclear weapon. --Tgal (talk) 17:24, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The Danish specifically made them sharp to torture parents. Never trust those sneaky innocent progressive Scandinavians! Shabi  DOO  17:40, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Even a landmine will do more damage if you step on it than a lego block. Fortunately I've never experienced stepping on either. Harry Potter (talk) 20:37, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Considering how much bank the Swedes make off of selling weapons to various tinpot dictatorships, I'd hardly call them "progressive." — Oxyaena Harass  21:03, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * FBI seized ‘fully constructed US Capitol Lego set’ from alleged riot leader


 * Don't ever let your children play with Legos. They breed dangerous thinking. Populus (talk) 04:25, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 04:45, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Pffft, Legos are nothing to get excited over. Any rpg-nerd can tell you that 4-sided dice are the ultimate domestic caltrops. 05:42, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * lego has the numbers advantage. everybody had lego at some point - they really are like landmines in the sense they can lie lurking in the shag pile for years and still be a threat. i bet rpg nerds know where all their dice are at any given time. nerd dice arnt lurking any where but a pot on the desk top or a little bag like they were diamonds. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:54, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You'd lose that bet. Part of the reason tabletop gamers, especially FRPG gamers are always buying dice is because they get lost a lot.  And they can be difficult to find once lost... except the 4-siders are a little easier to find because they hurt like everloving fuck when you step on one, less so with the other polyhedral random integer generators. Kencolt (talk) 15:58, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The plot thickens:
 * Legoabomb.jpg
 * Shabi DOO  18:24, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

We need some numbers to figure this out. I'd argue a single D4 dice is about 10 times more harmful than any single individual lego. I don't have any legos in my house, so clearly the argument that legos are in *every* house is incorrect, at least insofar as us aged nerds who never found mates are concerned. Also, some of us nerds are fairly disorganized. Probably quite a few of us. But I'm not willing to throw away the argument for Legos. I need some hard evidence and mathematics. Make me proud RatWikians! 18:37, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Mmm, I am not sure. I'd probably rather step on an average 1 by 2 lego block than a four sided die. But there are a few speciality lego pieces which I would most certainly not want to step on at all costs. I don't have any dice or lego pieces (or children in my flat) so I need not worry about that. I also don't have any atom bombs in my flat...so that isn't a concern either. Shabi  DOO  18:50, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Worst thing about LEGO is having to drop a surprising amount of money on a bunch of fun plastic. 50 dollars for a smallish set? Second worst thing about LEGO is how Nintendo decided to make Mario a gimmick so I can't have him pilot an X wing and shoot down Homer Simpson. 19:16, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * when i was a kid i had buckets of the stuff. everybody did and played with it on floor. a brave man walked barefoot them days. all different shapes and sizes. and you know what the kicker is? i can use em to make a cudgel and batter every mother fucker that comes at me with dice. a saving throw dont work on real life blunt force trauma. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:38, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * LGM's economic argument is strong. But it's specifically strong against Legos as a "caltrop" type of weapon. Single D4 dice costs...I've forgotten how much...but I assume about 1-2 dollars. A box of barely harmful by themselves Legos cost 20-30 dollars (I assume...I live in Euro land). You can get 20-30 highly lethal D4 dice for a set of probably 100 or so barely harmful Lego bricks. I'd rather walk on the Legos. 19:50, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note to self; if invading Denmark, wear thick boots. 20:03, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This is why I instantly forgot about Legos as soon as I learned about Minecraft. It's all digital, and you'll never have to go through the excruciating IRL pain like that of stepping on those 1m×1m×1m mottled cubes- unless, of course, you make it so you get shocked upon taking fall damage. It makes my feet hurt even just thinking about those bloody plastic bits from hell; curse the Danes for unleashing this monstrosity upon four generations and counting. At least the Swedes, while MC's creator might not be a very nice man, know the score: Make it digital. -- Goatspeed. 21:33, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The thing about Minecraft is that it looks quite ugly. I feel digital playing with toys misses more than just a few things compared to the physical aspect. Maybe I'm just a dolls/beanie babies/Mario plushies taking care of children and dollhouse person, being raised a girl, idk. 00:31, 8 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Minecraft is objectively worse because once I'm finished building something I can't throw it at someone. I do not ordinarily do this with Legos, but the option is always there.  Also you can use Legos *with* RPGs.  D4s on your 2x4s!  MirrorIrorriM (talk) 00:59, 8 July 2021 (UTC)


 * LGM, your sig formatting seems to be failing. Probably a bug caused by a recent edit to it. -- Goatspeed. 01:51, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That's weird. It shows up fine and the page is semi-protected from the douchebags. 03:44, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

its a little bit of red herring comparing the cost lego to nerd dice. if we are talking about going out buying in bulk for the purpose utilising lego or dice as caltrops, why not just buy caltrops? or anything resembling them made from spikes and metal that would actually break the skin? as an improvised alternative, they'd need to be readily available and be enough of them really maximise their utility against foes, who for some reason dont own shoes, and that is still lego. more kids have lego than dice. they accumulate more lego as time goes on. i dont care how many dice some gamer loses, they'll only have a couple or so at any one time. if you have kids or know any one with kids, you have access to all you need to make thick carpet impassable without your slippers on. ive never even seen a 4d. nerds AMassiveGay (talk) 21:12, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It isn't a higher spacial dimension of existence, it is a die with 4 sides! It's a d4, not a 4d!  *Hyperventilates*  MirrorIrorriM (talk) 11:47, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Helpful resource for LGBT+ adults
https://support.therapytribe.com/groups/lgbtribe/

I was referred to LGBTribe by the Trevor Project. I am actually finding it very helpful. --Tgal (talk) 21:20, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

How does Nihilism work?
People all be like "there is no purpose to the universe", and I be all like "so?". Since when does the entire universe have to have an inherent purpose for you to pick a purpose and run with it? I decided to make games that my friends find fun to play. It's cool they even buy me a beer sometimes or order pizza. What would the universe having a purpose even mean? That everyone should build statues to a giant octopus or something? How would the universe having an "inherent purpose" even imply that you should give a shit about it? MirrorIrorriM (talk) 19:30, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This is just one version of . Existential Nihilism simply posits that the universe lacks an inherent meaning or purpose. It is the foundation of philosophies such as existentialism. It's also frequently misused by people who don't read philosophy. 19:38, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * FINALLY an interesting question about Nihilism. I'd say, why you should give a shit about it would depend on what that meaning is. If, defying all odds (0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000001%) that the Christian general story is true and there was a God that created everything, I'd say that meaning is important. You have an abusive narcissist who created this absurd place we live in, is prone to vicious cruelty and will torture you for eternity if you don't believe in him. I'd say IF this really were the case and it were self-evident...I think you ought to give a shit about that. If we discovered that we were just a simulation on someone's desktop, I think we would want to find out as much as possible about the why, how and what we might expect (if the person intervenes, how to use that to our advantage and also general curiosity about this person and what the story is behind this simulation). As for building a giant octopus? I suppose that depends on whether the great dark lord demands it. If he wants it made out of diamonds, that would be quite costly...but if the great dark octopus lord commands it...we must obey.
 * Also be very careful to distinguish between Nihilism and "reactions to nihilism" which are two very different things Shabi  DOO  19:41, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Damnit I was just about to post that.-Flandres (talk) 19:43, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * OH No! But if the Universe has no meaning that would mean ... .... um ... what would that mean? Nothing significant that I can see. I can't even see why we should even expect it to have a "meaning".Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 20:02, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

As a political nihilist, I believe in the complete negation of all societal institutions and structures, and I don't really care what comes after this. — Oxyaena Harass  20:06, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Is that the same or different than anarchy? Or is that like the voluntary extinction movement or something?  MirrorIrorriM (talk) 20:19, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Definition time: lacking an inherent purpose is, but finding purpose derived from the universe that exists is called "existentialism". Nihilism, by contrast, is rejecting the idea that the purposes found in an uncaring universe can have value.  Transcendentalism is the last major school of thought in the Philsophy of meaning, and they believe, unsurprisingly, that there is a trancsandental, greater purpose to life that exists beyond the atoms and molecules that make up physical existence.  Typically this involves religion and dualism and sucks balls for accuracy.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:06, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It depends, a synonym of political nihilism is anarcho-nihilism yes. — Oxyaena Harass  04:42, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree with that definition. Nihilism (in reference to the conversations we have been having about inherent meaning), in general, is simply the negation of inherent values/meaning. That it is the negation that "purpose found in an uncaring universe can have value" is an extreme form of nihilism (or an extreme reaction to nihilism). It is one thing to go "yeah, we haven't found any meaning written in the fabric of the universe and it seems unlikely we will" it is another thing to go "and oh yeah, there is no value to the meaning you/we work out ourself(ves)". That is an argument that flies in the face of a common nihilistic trope that "values" are relative. It's a contradiction I never managed to see Nietzsche ever work out in his rambling books. If you meant there is no inherent value to subjective meaning, well, that's a tautology and not a particularly useful statement or insight. It is certainly a scary thought, because one person's meaning may seem utterly bankrupt, superficial, nefarious, destructive, vapid, immoral, cruel etc to others. I don't see how that chaos in meaning somehow negates value. Shabi  DOO  07:07, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I gotta wonder what and/or which form of Nihilism it is you seem to suggest that has "there is no purpose to the universe." Although, personally I feel it redundant to think that the universe has a purpose, it merely is. I think it might be more worth your time first reading up on the history of the movements and getting a better understanding beyond the facile western view of "nothingness" have a start here https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/aragorn-nihilism-anarchy-and-the-21st-century and then before you read anything else, read The Idiot by Dosteovsky (because who doesn't get a laugh out of seeing characters spouting the shite Dawkins and Harris do today, but from a book written 150 years ago, by a far more insightful and intelligent writer than they could ever hope to be.) Cardinal Chang (talk) 15:57, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I cannot think of any version of nihilism where there is any inherent meaning in this universe. I'd certainly be very interested in reading anything that says otherwise. The phrase I used is simply another way of saying there is no objective meaning/values which is as general as you can get when referring to Western Nihilim from late 19th century onward (God given meaning or meaning written into the fabric of the universe or something more interesting). As I said above, this is "in reference to the conversation we are having about in inherant meaning" which is what Machina has been referring to. In this context, at it's most general, modern Western nihilism is the negation of objective meaning/values. Only some philosophers took it to the more extreme: negation of subjective meaning/values. I had to repeat my first exam on Nietzsche for this very reason as I gave an overly broad definition. Nihilism is an umbrella term for many areas of thought which includes both Eastern and Western tradition. In the Western tradition it goes far beyond what Machina was referring to (not only the negation of meaning/values but it can include negating just about everything). More extreme philosophers like Schopenhauer took it to absurd levels resulting in toxic pessimism, as well as highly complex and even baffling schools of thought like Kierkegaard and his successors. Eastern nihilism is even more nebulous. I honestly think it better to avoid the term Nihilism because of the confusion that usually arises. In this context, "objective/inherant meaning" would have totally sufficed. Shabi  DOO  03:20, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Aye, Nihilism is certainly a misunderstood word these days, similar to how socialism would be in The United States. Anyway it's too early on a Sunday for such discussions. Since you mention Nietzsche have a blast of this, it'll give you a laugh. The genius of Rob Newman https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000n5yy Cardinal Chang (talk) 08:43, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Well Shit
I had a shootout happen right in front of me like 15 minutes ago when I was trying to go to a restaurant. It was on the only road to exit from my neighborhood and now the roads are filled with police cars. Never seen a gunfight IRL before. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 22:26, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Just try not to panic and stay away from the area. --Tgal (talk) 22:39, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It's fucking surreal. Just waiting here.  I was only like 30 meters away in my car, I'm just hoping they didn't see my car and decide they want to come after me as I am a witness.  Although that's probably unlikely because they were in a shootout they probably don't care about some random car.  Still scary as fuck.  MirrorIrorriM (talk) 22:53, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It can be unnerving to hear the sound of real bullets. I hear guns can sound like popping. Regardless, I'm happy you're safe. 23:01, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm shocked at how not-loud it was. We had the car windows down at the time, and I feel like if they were up and we were playing music we totally would have missed it and drove into the middle of the firefight.  MirrorIrorriM (talk) 23:38, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Depends on the type of gun, the Saturday Night Specials usually involved in street gunfights are loud but not deafening. A Desert Eagle, though, has quite a roar; I've only been to a range a few times, and not in many years, but I sure remember that. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい ) 01:10, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Let me guess - you all live in the US?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 06:45, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I do, although Connecticut is hardly known for its gun-totin' redneck culture; Sandy Hook is literally in the town next to where I mostly grew up, our former governor was Public Enemy #1 on the NRA's hit list for years. Still, when I was in Boy Scouts we occasionally shot .22s, muzzle loaders, and shotguns, all under careful supervision. It is a lot of fun, to be honest, not that I'd ever want the hassle and expense of getting my own. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい ) 14:17, 10 July 2021 (UTC)


 * @Bob How'd you ever guess? MirrorIrorriM (talk) 21:38, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It was the spelling. :-)Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 06:48, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

NoFap
This is nuts.

I was on semen retention for days then and I was in a constant state of horny. I also had things like existential fears, depression, nihilism/purposelessness, anxiety, crying, letting go of old insecurities and fears, weird vibrations circulating in my body, either coming from my head, the center of my chest, or shooting up from my pelvic floor, realizations that I am imagining everything (even if only slightly), but mostly I was just severely horny.

And today I was just sitting on my couch, horny as usual and I noticed this very particular sensation in my pelvic floor, which was very pleasurable. I closed my eyes and concentrated on it, and I consciously tried to intensify it. After a few times of "losing hold of it", I managed to just keep making it more and more intense, until it became so strong that it triggered my ejaculation reflex. It was the most intense orgasm I've had so far but nothing mindblowing. What's mindblowing to me is that I managed to do it with my mind (and some minor pelvic floor contraction I think, but that came rather unconsciously) - I consciously directed the "energy" or whatever there. They didn't mention that on the NoFap superpowers list. Also, for a brief moment I managed to move this sensation up to my stomach, but I lost it quickly.

It is an interesting story I thought I'd share, but also I wanna ask you guys for some advice - where do I go from here? I can't just shrug this off as some weird one-time thing. Can you suggest any reading material, teachers, practices, warnings or whatever else? HairlessCat (talk) 22:30, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You don't need to no-fap in order to be able to orgasm without physically touching your genitals. It is possible to do this whenever you like (and as you said, with muscle control it is easier). For example: men are able to orgasm if they are anally penetrated without touching their genitals and can do it every day (without depriving themselves). And even if going for a day or two without any sexual release can lead to a different kind of orgasm, this has NOTHING to do with nofap, which is a deranged philosophy that self touching is harmful or detrimental, or at the very least, that avoiding it has some kind of amazeballs health/mental benefits. Shabi  DOO  00:52, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Infants 'have natural belief' in a god?
I had a debate with a person about whether a god exists. I brought up that infants are not born with a belief in a god and that a lack of such belief is the default position. Thus, the burden of proof lies on the theists. However, the person responded by saying that infants may actually be born with such a belief according to an Oxford study. I tried to look up the study, and I guess the person was referring to the study mentioned in this article:. Even if the study was true, it does not prove that a god exists. Infants have tendencies to commit scale error, A-not-B error, and fail the "Smarties test", so an infant's beliefs does not determine the validity of a proposition. Even without reading the study itself, it evidently suffers from WEIRD bias by focusing on British and Japanese children, so its conclusions are already suspect. I would be interested in hearing people's thoughts on the study if they have read it before. CoagulatedEjaculate (talk) 23:00, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter. Whether I'm holding a rock in my hand or not is not a matter of opinion or belief, but rather of evidence and proof. 23:10, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * If it were the case that infants would not develop God theories without parental intervention, that wouldn't prove God doesn't exist. It would simply be one more reason to be sceptical of God not existing. Just as, when we trounce around the world and find that no culture has independently come up with the God/Jesus story, it is yet one more reason to demand extremely compelling proof for the God theory that Abramamic faith believers claim. We don't need a baby-no-God evidence to back up our scepticism. The absolute fucking mountain of absurdity in the bible and claims that Christians make is enough to dismiss it as ridiculous bullshit. Shabi  DOO  01:00, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I seems unlikely to me that infants are born with many positive beliefs at all. Though they may well believe that their particular mother is the absolutely best (and perhaps only) person in the world. But I doubt that it would be a good idea to build too much adult philosophy on this.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 06:42, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Any child old enough to talk has already been exposed to the idea of god, there’s no reason to believe they came up with the idea independently. Christopher (talk) 14:32, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Kinda unrelated. But when I was a kid I used to believe that everyone knew that God doesn't exist and they were just lying to confort me. The weirdest part was when I thought that my family was actually paying the others to lie to me. I think I got this idea when I watch The Truman Show in... 2000? Maybe? Anyway, I wasn't 10 yo yet when I came up with this last idea. Not sure about the first one, but the idea of God always sounded ridiculous to me, even if I'm not as hostile to religion as I used to be. I tried to believe when I was younger, perhaps I even actually believed for a period. My actual "conversion" to full atheism was when I first read about the, though my parents still forced me to spend the next year in Confirmation. GeeJayK (talk) 15:29, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * People have an inborn tendency to understand almost all phenomena by attributing motive, purpose, and goals to them. Water 'seeks' to flow downhill.  Opposite magnetic poles 'attract' each other.  Every colloquial language will be full of similar expressions.  This is not exactly the same as an innate belief in God, because God is a bit more complicated a construct than that.  It is an example, I think, of an innate belief in an animate universe filled with minds and spirits with desires and demands. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 14:17, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Marsha Blackburn
Going by this from a search engine - is MB W-mission-worthy? Anna Livia (talk) 18:17, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Blackburn hawks back to the Tea Party days and my first read is that she probably is more at heart a Koch oriented Republican that cares more about taxes than anything else. One interesting note about here is that Blackburn played a key role in a 2001 revolt at the Tennessee state capital where angry people, fueled by conservative talk radio, smashed a few windows at the state capitol. It sounds very familiar except that instead of being about radical do-nothing cult worship of Angry Baby, it was about an actual issue: income taxes. Some day, someone will look back at the United States and chronicle the mental decline of the right wing anger and outrage machine, where it went from outrage over taxes and business shit, to outrage over trivial shit like Dijon mustard and flag lapels, to outrage at an empty chair. At any rate, Blackburn already has a short blurb in the Republican party article, and I'm not sure she's done too much significant to warrant anything further. Taylor Swift seems to have turned more US politically leftward as she has aged (probably in response to Angry Baby and in defiance of certain outdated tropes) and this is the reason for the above feud. I can't find anything terribly significant about Blackburn that doesn't apply to the Republican party as a whole. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 20:58, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Information about MB has not crossed the Pond. Anna Livia (talk) 18:47, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Pillsbury Dough boy “Mandela effect”
I’d like to preface this with the fact that Mandela effect, to me, is people misremembering stuff, but it seems like in popular culture it means travelling through the multiverse or something like that. Anyway, the Doughboy, no clue what it is, but people are using i as “proof” for the Mandela effect (the latter explanation) apparently the scarf is white but a lot of people think it’s blue, there’s even merch with a blue scarf. I have no clue what this thing is, I’m assuming it’s a mascot for some food brand, but the only interaction I ever had with it was from that one simpsons episode. The scarf on the merch and in the episode is blue so people are claiming that it’s “proof” of a different reality (I have no clue how) but what’s the rational explanation for the different colours? Just offbrands? —WMS (talk) 17:21, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a mascot for Pilsbury, their cinemon rolls used to be really common (came in a tube that you popped open, put in the oven and came out fresh). Their oven products were often terribly terribly sweet but was fun to make them as a kid. Their marketing genius was having them make a cute "tee-hee" sort of sound when someone nudged him in the belly button.
 * If someone asked me what colour his scarf was I would have said blue as well. Many of the Mandela effects happen because of cartoon parodies (like the one you quoted there) that confuse things. They make subtle changes (for whatever reason) and they stick. In this case, he did have a blue circle on his hat and sometimes had blue eyes, so that could easily explain the confusion for those who had never seen the parodies or merch. I don't think the Mandela effect is really profound in most cases, just cultural tweaking or the mind mixing up little details. A few of them though are difficult to explain. Shabi  DOO  17:45, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Also keep in mind that character designs can be changed from iteration to iteration, with features changing back and forth. Just because he had a white scarf one day does not mean they didn't do a run of packaging with a blue scarf or that they couldn't make toys that were different from the official artwork.  They might even have had different designs depending on which part of the world/country they were sold in.  Stuff happens all the time.  MirrorIrorriM (talk) 10:02, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I thought the Mandela effect was when you remember that you always liked Nelson Mandela and never called him a terrorist. 82.46.167.158 (talk) 14:29, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * So it's legit just people misremembering stuff and certain characteristics sticking in people's minds even if false in addition to the potential of designs changing and such. Honestly, why is so much hype placed on what appears to be a simple quirk of the mind?--WMS (talk) 14:09, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Off-topic discussion from WIGO talk:CP

 * Anyone watching the football? LondonGrump (talk) 08:54, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Naah, I'm watching the Tour, first stage today, for a while before I have to go to work delivering food until 1030 PM. I will be listening in the van though. You supporting Wales? Oldusgitus (talk) 11:15, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Clashes with the real time online Lego convention today so I'll watch the highlights. The youngest has Wales in his class sweepstake, so will watch later. LondonGrump (talk) 13:54, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Wales are a strange side. A few class acts but mostly EFL players. 15 minutes to go and I can see no way back for them. They are better than Scotland though, a 0-0 draw with England and they don their kilts, take up their claymores and march on Berwick. Their vitriol is on line with Conservapedia. Only beating Croatia 1-0 and now this! Friday 16th June 2021 was truly the worst day in the history of English football.--Mercian (talk) 17:33, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Wales is indeed a strange side. Back in the early noughties, the Mirror ran a comparison of the English and Welsh teams, with the price of each player. One of the Welsh fellas was worth all of £300.

Having said that, there's also a school in Wales that pumps out world class sportsmen - Geraint Thomas, Sam Warburton and Gareth Bale were all at the there at the same time. LondonGrump (talk)


 * One thing’s for certain though: football ain’t coming home. I just wish England could enter a tournement consisting solely of England and San Marino! Leucippus Talk 00:55, 29 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Fucking hell!! Did anyone watch the France-Switzerland game? Just caught the highlights ... what a game! Leucippus Talk 15:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I did. Can't say I'm sad. 1998 and 2018 are still fresh in my mind. GeeJayK (talk) 15:39, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes. You’re a Brazilian. Great having a neutral country to do the work for you, eh? Almost like hiring Swiss mercenaries ... Leucippus Talk 18:46, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * France really did look like the best team in the world, for about 15 minutes as did England today. Fortunately for us it was the last 15 minutes:)--Mercian (talk) 21:09, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * France cost me a considerable amount of money yesterday. After being up about $500 in the group stage, I'm down $700 since the knockout stage.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 21:27, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I know right, It’s coming home! Southgate’s genius strategy seems to involve boring each team shitless. We made Germany just as boring as us. Southgate lulled them into a very English sleep ... and then, suddenly, we struck—preying on a German team that had the equivalent of a round of Cosbys. But fuck it, we fucking won. I’ll take the “boring game” over the “beautiful game” if it means England can beat Germany, and perhaps ... even Iceland. Leucippus Talk 21:37, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't put any money on England in Rome, although there's bound to be cracking odds out there. LondonGrump (talk) 09:03, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I could not have said it better myself. 7/8 defenders in the starting line up, 2 centre backs, 3 full backs and 2 defensive midfielders who play centre back occasionally. 3 up front, one who can and often does play at full back or wing back with no creativity in the centre of the park at all. If we had drafted Ryan Sessegnon to play at left wing we would have had 10 outfield players that can play in defence on the pitch. Still, it worked.--Mercian (talk) 11:04, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Seems to me that England are the favorites, maybe behind Belgium. Although this could be a year that we have a Cinderella story winner like Denmark, the Czech Rebuplic or Ukraine.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 16:03, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Two complaints about yesterday: (1) The booing of the German national anthem yesterday was beyond pathetic, makes me ashamed to be English, and (2) our so called “national anthem” is so fucking ridiculous, it has absolutely nothing to do with our country. If there was a God why on earth would he want to save a woman who decorates her head with a flower pot?  There are literally families in Alabama who have better genetic stock than the royal family.  Leucippus Talk 16:37, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, "Fictional deity who extremists evoke to support their disgusting ideologies save the old lady who is head of state because her ancestors practiced such ideologies." is a bit of a mouthful.--Mercian (talk) 16:59, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Why can’t we just have Bohemian Rapsody as our anthem? Leucippus Talk 17:02, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The fact that UK is not part of Central Europe is one reason for sure. This one is a far better anthem than God Save the Queen if you want my opinion though. GeeJayK (talk) 17:29, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * we dont have a national anthem for england. god save the queen refers to the crown ie the british state rather queen liz speficially. its good that it is vague platitudes rather a than list of british sounding achievemnets or ideals set to music or crass fist pumping 'we the best (because of an implied genocide or something now a little dubious)' sort of stuff. the zenith of english accomplishment and significance that a rousing national anthem that only sports people are required mumble is part and parcel of that time england was the best in world at exploiting the wealth of stolen lands and getting rich from the backs of slaves.
 * god save the queen is quite dreary and not specifically englands anthem. i propose the birdy song, unless theres a verse blaming the jews for 9/11 or something i am unaware of. maybe all that whistling is morse code for something really offensive. dont think about too much about its a just a boring tune no one knows the words to and would be a ball ache to do anything about for no good reason worth the effort. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:45, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You can’t be serious: “Rule Britannia”?! I think I saw, much to my horror, brexiteirs singing that on “last night of the proms” once (I accidentally switched channels onto BBC four, not that BBC four’s bad, mind). Examples of good national anthems: the French anthem and the Irish anthems. @AMG really? Ireland didn’t seem to have many issues changing their anthems. Regarding patriotism: if you ask me, patriotism is silly, though I won’t deny that dogmatic allegiance to something: be it state, Queen or landmass is a regrettable part of human nature (that is maintained due to its practical advantages) Leucippus Talk 18:28, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * (EC) As much as I despise the Brexit I think it's a beautiful song. I was especially thinking about its musical qualities, even if they might get mixed with politics. I love La Marseillaise, but is even more bellicose than Rule, Britannia!, and often sung by the same nuts in France that sing Rule, Britannia! in UK as far as I know (thought actual patriots also sing it).
 * I think you're understimating your country too much. I almost wrote a hefty, boring post explaining why I think England was a lot more than a buch looters during the XVIIIth and XIXth centuries, but it was too boring and long even for the standards of my posts and I'm working right now, so, not a good idea. But I think it's incorrect to say that it got rich because of plunder and, to some extent, that other countries got poor because of it. Basically the UK because what it was (and indeed what it is) because it developed many good institutions. Many bad ones? Indeed. But still more good institutions than pretty much everyone else in the same perioid. Other countries also looted, but they didn't get rich (indeed, looting is the rule, not the exception in human history). Meanwhile, many countries that didn't have colonies experienced a similar growth. In the long term the only way to achieve sustainable growth is with the . According to Wikipedia, pretty much came from the UK. This was the engine of the spectacular growth UK experimented, not colonialism. I can elaborate if you want to, but please don't think your country only got rich because you're a bunch of marauders, you guys are a lot better than that.
 * Now, I think we should abide the rules, and they say "For non CP-related talk, please mosey on over to the saloon bar." GeeJayK (talk) 18:51, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * God Save the Queen? The older version was ripped off by a bunch of countries, including by rabble rousers. The is an affront to good taste, as intended. Bohemian Rapsody should be the national anthem of Czechia, where it belongs. Bongolian (talk) 18:59, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I respect your opinion, though to many over her “Rule Britannia” smackers of Toryism, the monarchy, and some of the more unsavoury aspects of our past. Yes, I agree, ‘Bohemian’ literally refers to the Czechia from days of yore. I was just presenting it as a song which would be far more enjoyable to have as a national anthem.  Leucippus Talk 19:20, 30 June 2021 (UTC)


 * (ec)They aways sing rule britannia at the proms. its kind of the thing that you do at the proms, on the last night. its all flags and pomp ad whistles. it not a brexit thing, but is the sort of thing theyd love.
 * but really, what do you want from a national anthem? its just meant bring people together at sporting events or signify the end of radio transmission for the night. its just tradition that we require be represented by an audio cue at certain events. in the uk we have a queen. shes on the money. god save the queen plays means its our turn to stand up for 10 seconds, let people know we are here. the french anthem is an ode to resistance and solidarity and courage that its history has had times when you want to come together around those things. the irish one allowed them to come together against a foreign enemy, after a divisive civil war and when the country was shiny and new and needed a new mission statement. the uk being that foreign enemy is another reason we use god save the queen for uk as a whole and england on its own. its been quite sometime since england has been in such existential peril that its become part of the national psyche. we've been pretty stable for a very long time. no major upheavals or revolutions that make rousing songs about unifying in the face adversity, quite a few that would hasten the exit of scotalnd and northern ireland. honestly we got what we got. any change to the status quo is a can of worms around the idea of who or what is english, or who or what is british that is best put off answering for now. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:48, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Bohemian Rhapsody is a comedy record. Rule Britannia is the Gammon anthem. God Save the Queen was lifted from Jean-Baptiste Lully's piece about Louis XIVI's anal fistula. The Sex Pistols and Motorhead are on the wrong side of the culture war. Which leaves Huw Parry's Jerusalem. Good enough for the rugby, good enough for the football. And there's a dub version. LondonGrump (talk) 20:47, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * @AMG the glaring issue is that whilst other countries have anthems that have something to do with their country or people, our supposed “anthem” is about saving the Queen and being subservient fucks—it’s pathetic. Personally, I’ve always had an ear for Thatcher pop four-piece Duran Duran. Leucippus Talk 21:37, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Star Spangled Banana still brings tears to my eyes. Dutchbag (talk) 02:45, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * After the recent Black Sea incident, don't they have to change the words to, "former ruler of the waves"? Dutchbag (talk) 02:51, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Don't change the subject
1. I deliberately went to derail The Conservapedian's attempt to start a discussion. It's like dealing with Ken - he gets a buzz out of being taken seriously by his "enemies". Fuck him.

2. Who the holy fuck thought "Football and the UK" was a sensible heading? This is the Euros, it's being watched all over the world, and the UK isn't playing. Northern Ireland wasn't playing. Wales was. Scotland was. England is (for now). For fuck's sake, that's the kind of dipshit septic error we expect from Andy and his band of bastards. LondonGrump (talk) 20:41, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 1 When we try to edit this page the following message appears: "For non CP-related talk, please mosey on over to the saloon bar." If you don't like it don't answer. Simple as that. Don't whine because people are trying to fix the rules you've broken.


 * 2 The word "and" has both a subordinate and additive meaning. In this case, "UK" is not subordinated to football: it was another subject that was also being discussed along with football (ie. it was additive). Come one, I speak English as a secondary language, but I'm sure it was clear for anyone reading the topic than I was using "and" in its additive meaning. GeeJayK (talk) 20:50, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * @GeeJayK I’ll echo what Miles Davis once said of post-60s jazz but about the Saloon Bar:
 * “[the Saloon Bar] is dead... it's finito! It's over and there's no point apeing the shit.” Leucippus Talk 21:52, 30 June 2021 (UTC)


 * 2 - apologies for misreading you and your header.
 * 1 - I wasn't starting a discussion about football for football's sake. It could have been about Loki, or the egregious abuse of the laws of physics in Fast and Furious 9, or marmite.  It was a direct response to The Conservapedian's post, a veiled "fuck off", like turning your back on someone and changing the subject IRL.   LondonGrump (talk)
 * And I replied on exactly that basis. Treat the child like a child and simply ignore him while the adults have a mature conversation.  And as it happens I was watching the TdF and fuck me it's been a crash fest this year.  Oldusgitus (talk) 14:08, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Any of you brits watching Wimbledon too? GeeJayK (talk) 16:03, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Dipping in. Hit ball ain't my thing really.  I prefer cycling.  So when TdF conflicts with hit ball I watch cycling.  When the cycling finishes I switch to hit ball, unless there's some rugby league or football to watch instead. Oldusgitus (talk) 16:40, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

England-Denmark. Our fans (in Wembley) are an abomination: booing taking the knee, booing the Danish national anthem, booing every time a Danish player gets on the ball, shining a laser in Kaspar Schmeichel’s eyes during the England penalty; they make me sympathise with Wellington’s observation about the English: “our army is composed of the scum of the earth.” I hope Italy destroy ‘little England’ on Sunday. Leucippus Talk 23:22, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The one person with a laser should be prosecuted and punished and also banned from all football venues for life. As for the booing, sadly we have a small Conservapedia minded minority among us. It also happens to us all the time.--Mercian (talk) 13:11, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh my Goat, the English fans actually stan that hard?! That's fucked up. They should just enjoy their team's success- beating big soccer nations like Germany and all. -- Goatspeed. 15:57, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Well after they beat Germany they spend a lot of time mocking about 10 year old German girl for crying and calling her "cunt" and "Nazi" and what not. It took a Welsh guy to try and improve the image of Great Britain.
 * English football fans are the absolute worst. 16:14, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Pls don’t take my previous comment seriously. I was just venting about some English supporters. The problems I highlighted are not unique to English football and my statements would fall apart under proper scrutiny e.g. I’m clearly making a hasty generalisation which was motivated by anger. I hope England win against Italy and I wish them the best of luck. The one thing that was obviously shit yesterday was the ITV commentary by Sam Matterface and Lee Dixon. Leucippus Talk 17:09, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * the booing at the knee thing is so much english fans are terrible per say, its that from certain MPs and usual assortment of right wing wing professional opinion havers are really jumping on the anti-woke train pretending its not racism and assorted bigotry, enabling the worst elements crowd. they really love themselves a bit of bitching about 'wokeness' and woke agendas - its the go to subject of choice for low effort tweets, on a medium that is already by design low effort, and for inane soundbites for fuckwitted pundits with absolutely fuck all to say, but desperate for exposure needed for a career in fuckwitted punditry. Laurence fox is the shining example of such a cretin and cannot say or do anything unless its in response to such egregious and dangerous wokeness like showing your opposition to racism by taking a knee. they have absolutely nothing to say beyond inane anti woke spluttering, no thoughts of their own, they have absolutely nothing except an inflated sense of importance.


 * as for berating a 10 year german girl, thats clearly wrong and inexcusable, and booing the opposition during the anthem (not just england fans who do this btw, not even in this tournement, and its not really typical behaviour - hope there isnt a resurgence of our worst impulses) is enabled by the aforementioned fuckwits combined with the exuberance of fans not seeing their team actually look like they could go the distant for, i dunno, within my lifetime.


 * and we beat the germans. that on its own for an outpouring of emotion from pent up frustration and disappointment. we didnt need a penalty shoot out either. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:38, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Scottish sweet love for the English
I am in Scotland at the moment. I was walking down the street and I heard a bunch of cheers coming from several pubs and bars. I checked my phone, and the score was Denmark 1 - 0 England. Basically it seemed that on this street at least, every Scottish bar and pub was full of people who were absolutely elated that whatever team was playing against England scored against England. I sat down at the terrace (I won't go inside a pub or a bar in the UK until I am double vaccinated as I have found people in the UK absolutely fucking reckless when it comes to COVID). When the waitress came out I asked her who the people in the pub were supporting. She laughed "the team England is playing. They'd support Afghanistan if it were the case". This made me laugh. I asked her if, once Scotland was out of the cup they would support Ireland or Wales in future games. She said "Yeah...why not"? But not England. LOL Shabi  DOO  16:53, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * i think its actually illegal for the scottish to cheer for england. its always been so. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:51, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Walked down the street today, saw tons of Scottish people cheering and celebrating that England lost. I don't blame them. The way English fans in Wembley were booing the Italians during the penalty...ugh...English fans are such a total embarrassment. Shabi  DOO  23:18, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Beating Nihilism
I want to see if people on here have good answers for beating it as the "why bother" to existence doesn't seem to have a solution as far as I see it, responses on various forums have ranged from odd to disappointing though. I've asked the same question on here: https://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/27361952/fpart/1/vc/1 Machina (talk) 21:33, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Why bother spending so much time on this, if you're going to rely on shroomery and the RW saloon bar for answers? Perhaps you enjoy asking about nihilism for its own sake. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒  talk  02:02, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree: Shroomery is probably not the best site to hang out on for existential crises. I'm reminded of John Lennon's allegedly coming close to losing his identity from too much LSD. Anyway, I think nihilism is wherever you look if you're looking for it. Religion often tries to hide it by promising pie-in-the-sky-when-you-die (and therefore the real world doesn't matter). Science also has nihilistic elements; even if humans manage to escape planetary death from the Sun enlarging, the end of the universe will erase absolutely everything. Also, the high frequency of multiple discovery in science indicates that even individual great people don't matter that much because someone else will eventually come along often at about the same moment. So, how does one deal with nihilism from an existential point of view? I think the thing to keep in mind is that as an individual one is only guaranteed one life, so one should try to make the most of it: try to find something that makes oneself happy, try to make others happy, try to improve the world. Bongolian (talk) 02:27, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

But in the link one poster mentioned how meaning is just entirely fabricated and the result of thoughts, it's provisional (I think it was the first page) and only based on context.Machina (talk) 02:59, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Much of what is said on that thread verges on incomprehensible. Meaning is used in different ways in different contexts.  In the context of 'the meaning of life', it comes to something like a purpose or end.  Whether there is an objective, universal meaning of life is still a contentious issue.
 * If you are prepared to accept intuitionism, then one argument for an objective meaning of life is that, intuitively, a life consisting of doing nothing but eating and sleeping is less meaningful than a life involving charitable activity or something similar.
 * If you are not prepared to accept intuitionism, there are other arguments. Off the top of my head, something like:
 * P1: If something would make anybody's life go better, then that thing is good-in-itself
 * P2: There are things that would make anybody's life go better (e.g. health)
 * C1: There are things that are good-in-themselves
 * P3: If an action produces something good-in-itself, then that act is meaningful
 * P4: There are acts that produce things that are good-in-themselves
 * C2: There are acts that are meaningful
 * Really, this is two separate arguments, one to establish the existence of things that are good-in-themselves and the other to establish meaningfulness. I think P3 would be the most controversial premise, followed by P2.  At worst, though, P2 can be weakened so as to apply to almost everybody, without sacrificing much of the argument's strength.  Additionally, I think even you, Machina, are not indifferent between the options of being chronically ill and being healthy.  Part of the argument's appeal is that it seems to move toward what people actually mean when they say some act is meaningful.  Doctors, people in charity, etc. are often thought to lead meaningful lives, and they seem to be providing goods of the type described above as good-in-themselves.  You might be tempted to ask 'Why are these acts meaningful?' But the answer is already outlined here: the acts are meaningful, on this account, because they produce goods that are good in-themselves, which is here taken to be an empirical status.
 * One objection I'll anticipate here is that the effects of these things are really only subjectively good according to human perceptions, and in any case they are temporary, and the heat death of the universe will ultimately end all their significance. To the first part, I'll reply that this is just a kind of contingency, but matters of fact are in general contingent, in the sense that they could conceivably have been otherwise.  It is perfectly conceivable that the sky be dark brown, but that does not make 'the sky is blue' a subjective observation.  It is still a fact.  Likewise, it is conceivable that the oceans be made of ethanol, but that does not mean 'the oceans are not made of ethanol' is not objective.  To the second part, I'll put forward that it is a fallacy to think that something has to be permanent to be meaningful.  That a suffering person will one day be nothing but disorganized atoms, and much later not even that, does not change the fact that they are suffering now.  Nietzsche has this idea, and much later so does Peter Singer.  The significance of an act taken today is not contingent on its effects 100 billion billion years from now.  When you really reflect on it, the idea that meaningfulness needs to echo on forever through the eons is actually the thing that is strange here.
 * You are probably more familiar with subjectivist accounts, if you are really studying the existentialists. One point I'll make is that it is a mistake, from their perspective, to think that you have to enjoy doing something for it to be meaningful in-itself for you.  Kant already makes a distinction between a person who does a morally good thing because they like to, and somebody who does so despite all desire to do otherwise, claiming that only the latter is unambiguously morally good.  You might think that it is really meaningful to be a doctor and save people's lives, and spend you whole life doing it even though you hate people, you hate blood, you hate irregular hours, and in short hate everything about being a doctor.  Equally, you might think it is meaningful even though you have no strong feelings about it.
 * Note that both a subjectivist account of the meaning of life and some objectivist accounts are compatible with meaning being contingent on human thought; we are ultimately concerned with the meaning of human life.
 * Ultimately, you have to recognize that the chain of 'why's must end at some point. 'Why should I do this?' Because doing this allows you to achieve such-and-such, which is valuable.  'Why is such-and-such valuable'?  It is valuable because of its relationship to thus-and-so, which is valuable in-itself.  'Why is thus-and-so valuable in-itself?'  It just is.  In any chain of reasoning, you eventually reach some axiom, which is basic and cannot be explained or justified in terms of something else.  Some things are just fundamental.  Obviously, you can reject axioms, but it's generally good practice to be prepared to offer good reason for doing so. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒   talk  04:02, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

But like the link said it's an illusion. Plus aren't axioms sort of a failure of philosophy. If you have to take something as true "just because" doesn't that mean you've essentially failed to back up your point? You've essentially just admitted defeat on making any sort of meaning in life.Machina (talk) 23:55, 7 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Just sidestep this problem with Epicureanism! There are dozens of us! 106.240.110.188 (talk) 07:54, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Horace seemed to think so: “As for me, you’ll find me in a fine state, fat and sleek, a true hog of Epicurus’s heard.” Leucippus Talk 18:13, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

nihlism is easy to deal with. you deal with it like most people deal with it. by not giving a shit about it. people dont get up every morning and commute to their 9-5 drudgery because they think its part of some secret in which updating the monthly sales spreadsheet is a key part. they do because they need to pay rent. they need to eat. they wanna buy some clothes, go on holiday in the summer and put a little in to the pension cos no great secret is worth dying at your desk for. kid go to school because the have to, they get a bollocking from parents and teachers if they dont, and its drummed into them that they 'need' an education. they do not do this because some inherent purpose to getting degree as part of some universal plan, they want jobs that will let them buy nice house or that satisfies some other need, or bumming around university for bit delays you having to do any real work. families motivate people when they have them, you work hard for a bonus to better provide for your kids, or just provide better things for yourself. you might exercise a little because it feel good to exercise, you look better, and it easier to pull, you can do sex for longer a time before your balls wither from age, and not exercising means getting fatter, your joints aching all the time, and scoffing down heart pill when you catch your breathe at the top of the stairs. you meet people, you date them you fuck them maybe move in together because its fun to do things. its nice to be able to do them people you like and you do things to just do those things with them.

no one is thinking about any greater meaning. no one thinks their lives are lived in service of some mysterious plan. they dont have time to living their own lives. all the meaning to their lives is entirely subjective to them and the choices they made, responsibilities they have acquired, just whatever situation they find themselves informing of the best course they can take for whatever they currently think they should be going for. none of its universal. life isnt one size fits all.

you only question your existence to any real degree when you think you fucked it up or something fucks it for you. a messy divorce and your kids a hate you. you are made redundant, too young to retire but too old to find a new job so easy. or just stuck in a rut you dont quite know how to get out off. nihilism is worried about only when the wheels have come off and everything you were motivated by seems like wasted effort and your not invested in anything else to make it seem worthwhile. or you were never invested enough in anything to begin with and it is harder than ever to find meaning or purpose as this is directly related to world you are ever more alienated from.

get yourself some religion and live as hermit. you can find meaning as written down in some holy text and wont need to find any of your own. its all done for you. if not, you wont find any kind of meaning not engaging with the world. there isnt any. its found by how we engage with the world and where that take us. we make it ourselves for ourselves. you've bought the lie of religion but not bought their solution. its not universal. it not inherent. we'd live exactly the same life as everyone else if it were. we dont. we all live life little different from one another, and it means something different to each of us. what wrong with that? AMassiveGay (talk) 16:55, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no inherent meaning. Once you realise this you work out that meaning yourself. You either have the mental disposition to make something out of that meaning or you don't. If you don't have that mental disposition then you can find ways to alter bad mental habits and improve mental health problems (with the help of a CBT specialist for example) or you can wallow away in the darkness of your hopeless thoughts and be miserable. If you have the resources to do something about it, then it is entirely up to you if you use them. If it is the case that a therapist did not diagnose you as depressed, there are still mental health problems that you ought to deal with which may very well be behind your struggle with nihilism, solipsism and pseudo-suicidal thoughts. We can all benefit from CBT. Consider not digging further down the rabbit hole of shroomery nonsense. Shabi  DOO  17:54, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

But the link says that meaning is just projections based on thought. It doesn't really exist, it's provisional meaning it is dependent on other things for it to stand. It's an illusion more or less. The product of thought. And my problem didn't have to do with religion. I didn't think god or whatever had some grand plan for me in life at all, but ever since I was a kid I questioned the point of going through all of it. Nihilism doesn't come when the wheel come off or things go wrong. It's sort of the backdrop behind everything we are doing in life. When we sit alone with enough quiet time we begin to question things in life. It's also something that creeps up on people once they have achieved their dreams, they're left with the nagging "now what" thought in their heads. It's something that is always there but people don't take the time to see it. You say people don't think about it but that isn't dealing with the problem. Most don't even know the problem exist they are just following the directions society put forth on what we ought to do.

You're wrong, most people don't deal with it, in fact most don't even recognize it until it happens. And when it does you can see they aren't quite the same as the were before.Machina (talk) 23:55, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not reading another fucking shroomery forum. Summarise the argument for me. I can't make any sense of the gibberish you've said so far. I am aware that we can only be 99.999999% sure there is no inherent meaning in the universe. If you consider that an axiom, then it is an extremely reasonable axiom to work with, just as the axiom that the Easter Bunny doesn't exist nor hides chocolate eggs in Easter is a reasonable axiom to work with (for whatever reason one might need such an axiom). If that's not what you meant, please clarify. Stop with the shroomery links, they are full of absolute fucking garbage arguments and philosophy.
 * You are in a minority of people who for whatever reason cannot get over the fact that there is no inherant meaning in life (whether you have worked out your own meaning or are even having trouble doing that) to the point that it is seriously disrupting your life. That is not "most people". For whatever reason this is disrupting your life, a solution is to use whatever resources you have available to help you cope with this, which would include at the very least learning some coping mechanisms but ideally, addressing bad mental habits and bad mental processes as well as any mental health issues. I saw this while studying philosophy, a handful of people ended up mentally crippled by this for some time, some got over it with help. I'm sorry you're having such a hard time with this. That really does suck. I hope you avail of the resources available to you. We ALL could benefit from them. It is up to you. Good luck. Shabi  DOO  00:16, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You should read this book. 01:10, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You (Machina) don't seem to understand how arguments work. Or how logic works.  What the link says, as I and others have already stated, is largely incoherent.  What you give me to work with in interacting with you is:
 * P1: Premises are a weakness.
 * P2: Your argument has premises.
 * C1: Your argument has weaknesses.
 * P3: If an argument has weaknesses, then it fails.
 * C2: Your argument fails.
 * This is incoherent, for obvious reasons. Note that if you reject something, you are affirming its negation.  If I take the axiom 'it is the case that something exists', and you reject it, you are affirming that 'it is not the case that something exists'.  Arguments derive conclusions from premises.  When evaluating an argument, you can (1) challenge whether the conclusion follows from the premises or (2) challenge whether the premises are true.  What you seem to be looking for is a conclusion that follows from no premises, an argument that has no starting point, and you seem to think (incorrectly) that nihilism fits this. What is tiring about interacting with you is that you come in nominally seeking an argument for some form of meaning in life, and then reject arguments presented on the grounds that they are arguments.  I am beginning to think that the reason you don't present an argument in standard form, or state in your own words the arguments you believe are significant from the shroomery link, is that you are unable to find a way to do it without stating some starting premises.
 * Since you are nominally interested in the existentialists, I'll end on a quote from de Beauvoir: "Just as a bad painter, by a single movement, paints bad paintings and is satisfied with them, whereas in a work of value the artist immediately recognizes the demand of a higher sort of work, in like fashion the original poverty of his project exempts the sub-man from seeking to legitimize it. He discovers around him only an insignificant and dull world. How could this naked world arouse within him any desire to feel, to understand, to live? The less he exists, the less is there reason for him to exist, since these reasons are created only by existing". 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒  talk  03:54, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I find it hard to deal with Nihilism because in a sense it is true. We do make up meaning. So to say that something matters to me just because I say so feels cheap and insignificant. Like a child playing with blocks and pretending their creation is a castle or some other thing. In a sense you could argue that you are lying to yourself. Some say embracing it is a solution but I don't know about that.Machina (talk) 07:01, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The book, read it. 14:57, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Or do like what I did. Turn into existentialism. At least we can enjoy the our pointless lives without whining about its futility all the time. 15:03, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The book is a collection of essays by Albert Camus. 15:08, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. I need to check it out. I'm a fairly basic existentialist myself thus far. 15:29, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I come back and read all this, and I can't get past Serene's seemingly reasonable assertion "By rejecting a premise you assert the opposite" going unchallenged. I can reject the premise that "American nuclear submarines are preparing a first strike attack for tomorrow morning" without knowing for sure or having evidence that they are not.  I need only consider it not necessarily true to reject a deduction and any conclusion strictly derived from it, (e.g. "Since we're all going to die tomorrow anyways, go ahead and steal whatever you want").  When you reject a premise, don't even necessarily assert the plausibility of the opposite either.  You might merely think it is an incomplete or partial truth.  Or that it interprets by way of an unstated subjective value of some kind.  For example I could reject "This is the longest book ever written" because it uses page count to arrive at that nominally true conclusion, and I consider word count important in-context.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:30, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I grant that my claim is false in a modal context, and in a logic with more than two values. I was primarily responding to the claim that axioms are a weakness, though, so I think I can comfortably weaken my claim to 'you cannot reject a premise without asserting some (other) premise'. At the very least, you have to assert 'The premise [the premise I am rejecting] is not necessarily true'. You cannot, for instance, reject that "American nuclear submarines are preparing a first strike attack for tomorrow morning" without (implicitly) asserting, at the very least, that "it is not necessarily true that American nuclear submarines are preparing a first strike attack for tomorrow morning". I suppose I could rephrase this as 'you cannot (consistently) reject the claim that 'A is true' without asserting that "it is not the case that A is necessarily true"'. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒  talk  22:09, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I find it hard to deal with Nihilism because in a sense it is true. We do make up meaning.  I take the second sentence here to be a specification of the sense in which Nihilism is true.  I'm not entirely sure what you mean by 'we make up meaning'.  Do you mean that we decide what the meaning of life is, rather than discover it?
 * To say that something matters to me just because I say so feels cheap and insignificant. Something doesn't matter to you because you say it matters to you, it matters to you because it matters to you.  There is a certain attitude involved here.  Separately, the sense in which we can force the chain of reasoning back to "because I say so" can be applied equally well to your reasoning against some forms of meaning in life.  "There is no meaning in life". "Why?"  "There is no objective meaning in life." "What about subjective meaning?" "That is cheap and insignificant".  "Why?"  "Because I say so!" (If the reply comes instead "Because it is not objective", we ask "Why does something non-objective have to be cheap and insignificant?", and it comes to the same thing.  The case is similar with "Because it provokes such-and-such a feeling".  Then we ask, "Why should something's significance be decided by its provoking such-and-such a feeling?").
 * I still have no idea what you mean when you say that this is a form of lying to yourself. You say that an argument could be made for this, so I'd invite you to present it, on the condition that you present the argument in a clear form (ideally, standard form: P1, P2, C1, etc).  If somebody says "life is meaningful", and they mean "you can decide for yourself what is the meaning of your own life", they are not lying to themselves, at least if you mean what I think you mean by "we make up meaning".
 * I would like to help you formulate your position more concretely, so I'm going to ask you a question. Do you think "life has meaning" is false or nonsense?  To clarify what I mean: "Earth is square-shaped" is false, but "Earth is red-shaped" is nonsense.  My question amounts to asking whether "has meaning" is more like "is square-shaped" or "is red-shaped". 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒   talk  04:25, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Well because saying life has meaning is lying to yourself. "making meaning" is really just playing pretend, so it is a lie you tell yourself. You say "this matters" but the truth is that it doesn't, but if you repeat it to yourself enough times then you come to believe it. It reminds of the belief in god, in a way. Saying that subjective meaning doesn't count isn't "because I said so" it's the truth. It's because there is no real meaning in life, any attempt at it would just be a lie in the end.Machina (talk) 16:42, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Machina, please show minimal respect to other users who who take time to read your comments and type out well thought out and well phrased responses. This is an ongoing issue with you and it is likely why other users have added you to their ignore list. You haven't addressed a single thing Serene or anyone else said but just repeated your previous terrible arguments. Can you not see how extremely frustrating it would be if you discussed something with someone who ignored your critiques of what they said and kept repeating the same nonsense? Put your claims in the form of a sound statement with sufficient evidence/explanation to justify the claim. A claim such as: "Making meaning is really just playing pretend" is the opposite of that. Shabi  DOO  18:24, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * it should tell one something that for everything they claim to be true can only be so if everyone else is lying to themselves and delusional.
 * someone is lying to themselves or is delusional, i will grant that much AMassiveGay (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Hey Assholes
Anyone know how to get a hold of larron? Neveruse514 (talk) 21:37, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You seem nice. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい ) 23:31, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This is almost certainly long-time troll MarcusCicero  .  If you look  here you can see a tiny fraction of the nonsense we went through with him.  Neveruse was one of his socks and both of them had a tendency to abuse everyone who interacted with them - though as he has limited himself to "assholes" this time his manners may be improving.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:17, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * MC hasn't been here for ages. This is an interesting development. — Oxyaena Harass  18:11, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Who is 'larron' - my websearch suggests it is French for 'thief.' Anna Livia (talk) 18:43, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing that would be User:LArron.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 19:42, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah cool! MC is back. Ace303, 808, 909 22:46, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This should be very interesting. --Tgal (talk) 23:23, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Pray tell where is MarcusCicero’s antithesis?—where is Mark Antony? Leucippus Talk 15:15, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I wonder how Europe would have turned out if the envisioned "State of Thrace" came to be?
Little rundown. In the first half of the 20th century the Bulgarian Communist Party wanted to essentially create puppet states in the Balkans. One of the puppet states would have been called the "State of Thrace" which would have encompassed the entire modern Thracian region (most of Bulgaria, a major piece of Greece and a small piece of Turkey).

I know that this is a mere hypothetical but how much different would the geopolitical landscape of Europe be if the State of Thrace came to be- even for a decade or two? --Tgal (talk) 23:30, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It's hard to imagine how Greece losing a little territory and the European part of Turkey also (minus Istanbul) would have radically changed the geopolitical landscape. If Thrace included Istanbul though, I think it would be a different story. Obviously, with the the butterfly effect, any territorial change would have radically changed the details, personalities and specific events as we know it and it is impossible to guess what would have happened, but I don't think the balance of power would have changed much with a minor territorial change for what was a pretty minor player on the European stage (Bulgaria). The partition of Greece and Turkey and population transfer was difficult (and had a terrible knock on effect with Cyprus) but it didn't disrupt European balance of power, I don't see how some minor territorial changes would have terribly changed that either. Having said that, if just one person in Switzerland 100 years ago ordered a tea instead of a coffee one day, it could have had ripple effects that led to a Europe we wouldn't even recognise today. At a geo-political level, the creation of Thrace wouldn't change things "in theory". But with the butterfly effect...it could have led to Michael Jackson never creating the Moonwalk and...where would the world be without that? Shabi  DOO  02:26, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Another little vicious semi-ethnic quasi-historic state in the Balkans? How would that change a damned thing? Would fit right in and not require us to redefine "balkanized" at all! :/  Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 03:31, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * "How would that change a damned thing?" Easily:


 * In 1933 Mustafa Kemal Ataturk was assassinated by a radical Kurdish splinter group - “Outer Haven” – and its leader, code named Sniper Wolf (real name unknown, and growl). Without the father of the Turks to lead the nation through this difficult period in history, tensions between the Kemalists and the militantly revanchist and traditional Democrats erupted into political violence and eventually boiled over into civil war on the eve of December 25th, 1940 (see Turkish Christmas).


 * In a whirlwind campaign the Democrats seized much of the Anatolian heartland by February, leaving the Kemalists with little else but their Thracian holdings, including the city of the world’s desire itself. Faced with defeat and more than aware of the Axis’ arms shipments to the Democrats in anticipation of their victory, the Kemalists prepared to join the Allies and go into exile, for the enemy had already massed on their northern border.


 * Nazi and Bulgarian occupation of newly renamed Tsargrad was among the harshest of the war: it’s estimated that over 90% of the Turkish population was deported or worse by 1945, replaced largely by ethnic Greeks and Bulgarians (see Turkish genocide). With the city went the Bosporus however, and the Soviet military was placed on high alert after the Germans denied shipping traffic to and from Soviet holdings on the Black sea ☉ ‿ . By May the Soviets had mobilized, and by June the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact had completely broken down, leading to a German declaration of war and the disastrous Operation Barbarossa, which largely stalled along the Stalin line (see what I did there?).


 * Faced with mounting unrest from the outset and soaring casualties as a result of Barbarossa, Goebbels (the rat bastard) proposed to turn Greek national sentiment and revanchism into a German tool when the Turkish Democrats failed to arrest their Kurdish insurrection and ceased to be relevant to German ambitions. His proposal – the Autonomous state of Thrace – brought both it and Greece into the Axis fold in January of 1942.


 * Greek troops fought hard as a result of being given free rein to settle the city, and in turn brought Soviet wrath upon themselves when the German trenches along the Stalin line failed in early 1944. Yadda Yadda Yadda, Soviet into Thrace and Bulgaria before the Brits and Americans can invade from the sea, Tsargrad becomes Konstantinopol', the “Autonomous” state of Thrace becomes the “Democratic” Thracian Soviet Republic, Israel eventually cozies up to the Soviet Union as a result of increased Naval pressure in the Med, and WW3 kicks off when Egypt seizes the Suez canal with Warsaw Pact support. Yoshiyuki Tomino is forced to produce Mobile Suit Gundam from an actual space station – we started building them as a result of attacks from the Nuclear black zones and “the Tainted” – so he gets his way and the series takes place entirely in space (it's not so much that he gets his way as nobody - not even the most meddling executives - would propose sending stompy robots down into the ruined cities. They're attracted to sound, that's how they find you).


 * ...So yeah, if Gundam is affected, an independent state of Thrace would probably have been a pretty big deal. Artificius (talk) 07:37, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed, if all those creative scenario happened, it would have been a big deal. I suppose also if Luxembourg were incorporated into the Belgian Kingdom it could have led to a Flemish revolution, the horror of which would have inspired French directors to make darker films which were not appealing to non-French peoplpe, which would have meant Franco didn't see a French film at which he met his wife, which would have resulted in him not making contacts which led him to be successful in the civil war, which led to Spain breaking up into smaller countries based on languages, which meant tapas as a tradition developed only in the Castilian areas leading to a smaller variety of dishes which as a whole were not exotic enough or a big enough menu to be exported to the world meaning there were very few Tapas bars outside of Spain, the very kind of place Boris Johnson was hanging out in Brussels when it occurred to him that he could make his journalism career more interesting by inventing the evil-European-Union in his articles which eventually resulted in Brexit which eventually will lead to our planets first Nuclear war later this century. So you see...Luxembourg's joining Belgium could have avoided Brexit and avoided nuclear war in the 21st century (though it would have eventually happened in the 25th century just before Earth's first Alien invasion). So there you go. That would have been a big deal. Shabi  DOO  08:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC)


 * ""How would that change a damned thing?" Easily:" - followed by a bunch of alternate history fantasy shoehorning bullshit to give credence to your vivid imagination! Get real - your scenarios rely upon a masive raft of wishful thinking - the Balkans would remain the Balkans - renaming Bulgaria as "Thrace" wouldn't change squat. Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 10:21, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * And if Hitler (sorry Goodwin) had won the Second World War by avoiding Barbarossa for instance  things would have been vastly more different.  It's easy to imagine alternative histories.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:07, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * There is an althistory wiki and various other non-wiki websites - which may be more appropriate for this thread. Anna Livia (talk) 22:40, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I’m picking up a note of hostility here: the “alt-history scenario bullshit” actually followed my read on what would or wouldn’t make this hypothetical state of Thrace more or less just another Balkan state, and I thought that starting it with a video game reference and ending it with how a children’s cartoon show might be affected and with vague references to Fallout or Chud-style nuclear monsters hinted that I’m not taking my scenario seriously, it’s just a placeholder. Should I have typed “/s?”


 * Istanbul was originally constructed by a forward-thinking Roman emperor on that spot for the fact that it was so defensible and likely also because one can control sea trade moving through the Bosporus very easily from that peninsula. Technology and trade routes have shifted, but control and power projection within the Mediterranean have not: Turkey controlled what Soviet ships could enter the med throughout the cold war, and China was prevented from having even a shitty blue water Navy for roughly ten years one year because Turkey wouldn’t let them transit an old Soviet carrier, likely bowing to pressure from the US (or just being a good NATO member, we’re not privy to the smoke-filled room where it happened) because they rightly feared the hulk would block the passage.


 * The OP got me thinking about how much control over the Med means and meant: my dad was actually “chilling” (read: scared out of his young mind) on a sub holding position in the strait of Gibraltar during the Yom Kippur war in 1974 during the oil crisis which was a follow-on effect of the Yom Kippur war (called my dad to check, apparently Israel was rightly still freaked about Egypt and Syria possibly escalating, so they went first. But his first year on the boat was in '74, that's partly how the memory has stayed rigid for him) which had orders to shoot the next Soviet anything that attempted to pass ("...ping 'em, if they didn't turn back we had four in the tubes, us and [the other boat]"). From what I’ve read, the DPRK was chomping at the bit to attack the south during that little incident, sensing their moment. Maybe just another one of those “was almost WW3” scenarios, but if the Soviets had free access through the Bosporus the calculus would have been completely different.


 * And post-Cold war? An insolvent and non-NATO Thrace would probably exploit its position, the way DPRK does.


 * tl;dr: Thrace without Istanbul? Just another Balkan state, more folks squabbling over who gets to use "Macedonia" and committing various acts which end up north in the Hague. Thrace with Constantinople (they’d certainly rename it)? Different animal, the strike on the billiard table. Artificius (talk) 00:15, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

With Climate Change accelerating, how long will it take before US west coast hurricanes become a reality?
I would not be shocked if hurricanes began to hit the west coast in the next few decades. Climate change is obviously a huge threat and we need to deal with it now. However we have uneducated idiots in government who block anything that benefits society in general. --Tgal (talk) 01:23, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I think conditions in the west coast are just generally unfavorable to hurricanes, so climate change won't do much for potential hurricanes there; same with tornadoes (unlikel in some Roland Emerich film years ago). What will happen is the droughts and heat waves, those blasted things, and maybe worse rain storms in some regions but drought and water issues will be the stick in the mud. That dry, cracked mud. Hurricanes and tornadoes WILL get worse where they are already strong in, though. 01:49, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I would say 'so Florida is fucked' but it'll be underwater and evacuated by the time hurricanes get freakishly frequent/powerful. Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 02:44, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * yeah, if there are hurricanes on the west coast, then major shit has hit the fan on the third coast. Princess Mononoke radio contact 04:34, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Pacific hurricanes form much further south than California; you occasionally see one make landfall on the Central American coast, and once in a great while one crosses over and reforms in the Gulf. But most of them head the other direction, towards open ocean.  More South Atlantic and Mediterranean hurricanes would be a likelier development. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 12:39, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * A couple of years ago a few made it all the way to Spain. At the time people were worried it might become a regular thing but nothing has come up since (that I remember) . Nevertheless it's a worrying trend.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:26, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, California HAS seen a few hurricanes. They're usually hurricanes that traveled far enough, though, and the worst California has is disaster from floods and such. Mostly rainfall, no harsh winds. But given the current conditions in the west coast, rainfall seems welcome, even though mudslides aren't desirable. 21:23, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

What failed predictions will falsify the global warming hypothesis? And how soon will those predicted events happen or not happen?

Failed global warming prediction example: Snows of Kilimanjaro to Vanish by 2020 - The Vancouver Sun in 2008

Failed global warming predictions: A senior environmental official at the United Nations, Noel Brown, says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000,” California’s San Jose Mercury News reported on June 30, 1989. “Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ‘eco-refugees,’ threatening political chaos, said Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program.” TrumpWillBeatHarris2024 (talk) 06:53, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * A friendly reminder that when it comes to climate change, your best sources of information are going to not be any sort of standard media. (This actually applies to left and right to a degree. Sometimes, the more shrill left-wing sources will oversell the worst case scenario. And as for the right wing? Well, Idaho ranchers blogs should stick to ranching.) The IPCC consensus and other more scientific models have been reasonably accurate, when it comes to temperature, for the last ~30 years at least. Sometimes individual predictions aren't correct, sometimes they are. Climate is tough to predict at the individual level. But the overall trend is clear.
 * One other point: one of these statements has not yet been disproven, considering that some island nations like Tuvalu are indeed worrying that sea level rise will eventually cause their island to disappear. But at this point, I think a *far* more worrisome scenario (considering population vulnerabilities) is heat waves of >35C WBGT in tropical areas like India and the Middle East. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 12:16, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I'm not sure that I would consider Fox News to be a "go to" source for reliable environmental information. According to Forbes The First Climate Model Turned 50, And Predicted Global Warming Almost Perfectly. Others like The Conversation made the same point.  It's not difficult to find specific predictions which are wrong - the (largely american) denialist media is full of them.  But none of them can deny the long-term changes.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:16, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Regardless, climate change deniers can go fuck off to Venus inside a closed car.  14:45, 12 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Meh. The problem with Climate Change is that the people championing it don't actually want to solve it, rather hijack the movement for their own pet causes.  E.g., the "Green New Deal" bullshit that has absolutely fuck-all to do with the climate.
 * The real solution to CC is multifold, but generally involves the following...
 * Cease importing as much as possible from the other side of the world. Transportation of goods is one of the biggest polluters, and as it's done on the high seas, the giant cargo ships do not give a crap about how filthy their engines are.  They use fuel that is so filthy it needs to be heated just to be viscous enough to flow through to the engines.
 * Redo our entire perception of "in style" clothing. Literally 10% of all emissions comes from the fashion industry alone.  We need to stop promoting this idea that we need to buy new clothes constantly, stop throwing away clothes at the slightest hint it's been worn before, and wear clothes that can last for years of abuse by washing machines and bleach instead of disintegrating after 10 cycles in the wash.
 * Invest in UHVTL, which aside from reducing energy lost in transmission, would massively benefit green energy far more than coal or gas. The biggest problem with green energy is that it doesn't produce when prices are the highest and produces when the prices are low or even negative.  By making the world more connected, excess energy can be shipped across regions, stablizing prices so that it's always profitable to produce electricity.
 * Combined with UHVTL, lots of pumped energy storage. Pumped energy works great in the Alps or Appalachian mountains, but these are the places with the worst sunlight or wind energy potential.  UHVTL allows excess energy from a windy day in Oklahoma to be stored in West Virginia, and then put back into the system whenever there's not enough energy.  Same with any hydro dam.
 * Note that the problem with the first 2 issues is Money. They make a few people too obscenely rich to stop, the second one in particular makes Left-wingers too much money in particular.  Too many celebrities get too much money from hawking crappy clothes that can only be worn once and have to be rebought, their entire image is that of the person with 3 walk-in closets the size of small houses.  Every last "influencer" from Instagram to Kardashian dreams of opening their own line of clothing and making a fortune.  So of course no one in Hollywood would ever do anything that'd shrink this cash-cow.  16:06, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, how does the Green New Deal have fuck all to do with climate change? And why is it bullshit? — <font color="Purple">Oxyaena <font color="Red">Harass  16:22, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Because it spent more time and so forth going after inequality than it did the environment. Look at the list of items in it.  Whether or not they're good policies, living wage, universal healthcare, and free higher education have fuck-all to do with climate change.  16:35, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * There are multiple angles that contribute to climate change, but the biggest contributors to climate change are electric power / heat and transport (with some significant contributions from other areas like agriculture as well). The fashion industry is representative of the problem, but I think blaming just that is a little strange (Clothes-loving liberals? Why not war loving neo-cons and their military?) Ultimately, the fashion industry's issues (and, for that matter, the military) reflect problems in many industries: energy for producing stuff is often done with carbon polluting sources, current consumer goods culture tends to be disposable (a problem for, say, electronics that is just as acute as fashion), and transport currently is done without considering the carbon impact. It's a type scenario, further amplified by the fact, face it, a heck of a lot of modern society is powered by carbon, so completely getting rid of fossil fuels overnight is a non-starter. So a bit of a bugger, eh? But from what I see, the "smart money" at least now recognizes this, oil is "not hot" on Wall Street where "green" companies are, and companies are falling over themselves to explain how green they are (even if only superficially). There's enough people working on the issue, so maybe someday people will probably come up with multiple solutions to mitigate the problems (regardless of whatever happens in American conservative politics; hell, this includes the US. Even conservative Iowa loves their windmills). Yes the grid absolutely is one of the issues to address. There are really only a few countries that at this point have political leaders in full climate-change denial mode. Generally they are countries with significant extraction industries (eg United States, Australia, Russia) who typically have seen some citizens fall for some effective propaganda created with nudges from certain extraction industry companies. But, of course, not all of them (as far as I know none of the Arab oil sheiks are climate change deniers, for instance). So "we'll see" what happens. I won't say we can "safely ignore" the climate deniers, but there's a lot of people trying to. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 16:38, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Actually, inequality has a lot to do with climate change. As it stands, the poor and marginalized in society are gonna bear the brunt of the effects of climate change. The GND is a good start to help mitigate this. — <font color="Purple">Oxyaena <font color="Red">Harass  16:48, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Also as an aside, if we actually want to get those things social justice items, then for fuck's sake, stop throwing money at the problem. Housing, Health and Education are three things whose have spiraled out of control in the past 50 years, and people have been trying to tackle the problem by throwing money at it.  They have it all backwards; those costs keep up with the ability to pay for things, not the other way around.  You figure out how to find $100,000/yr for college, colleges will figure out how to make it cost exactly that much.  Instead, the government should provide more State schools such as UCLA or the SUNY system.  Instead of throwing money at hospitals and insurance companies, reform and expand the VA, and as government you could eliminate the biggest costs the hospitals have by just saying "fuck off" to the PBMs and so forth.  Rent control actually makes landlords filthy stinking rich while fucking over the middle class at the same time, it'd be so much cheaper to simply build public housing that's available to all.
 * Yes, I realize that massive expansion of government to provide these services is "Democratic Socialism", so be it. 17:01, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I brought up fashion because no one else ever does. It's always "farming" or "cars", because rich celebrities generally are barely going to notice if we reform those industries, but they would be absolutely devastated if we reformed the clothing industry.
 * The complaint that our climate mitigation policy and discussion focuses too much on agriculture and transportation industry as pollutants rather than the clothing industry is a really odd one. First I think fashion and agriculture and transportation are largely related to each other. Materials you need for fashion are probably handled by crop growing and making wool, which is massive overlap with the agricultural industry. You just can't entirely detach fashion from agriculture. Finally, there's this odd griping about income inequality being a focus in the Green New Deal, but you later go on talking about solutions that address income inequality, being housing, health, education. Income inequality IS a big issue with climate change mitigation, by the way, and I think climate change is a human rights issue, so it makes sense that ensuring clean air, potable water, etc are goals (also remember the complicated problem with food deserts where meat and corn are subsidized so it's more economical to eat high emission food than produce). Also I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that rent control just makes landlords rich. As far as I know, rent control isn't the issue but the lack of reinforcement for it such as imposing rent control but letting landlords convert apartments to condos and such weakens the intended effect for it. Rent control appears to be a hairy subject and probably so complicated you can't reduce to a soundbite like that. 00:29, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Rent Control makes landlords filthy rich because it takes so many apartments off the market.
 * Consider this. If you have 1200 people chasing 1000 apartments, the 1000th richest person sets the equilibrium price.  If you take the bottom 200 people out of the equation and put them into 200 of the apartments, it's now the 800th richest person setting the price.  How much more do you think the 800th person can pay than the 1000th person?  What about the 700th?  The 500th?  01:01, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not particularly convinced by simple explanations like this. 19:12, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Off topic on Military

 * As for the military, yes it's a huge polluter but it's also a bit disingenuous to only blame the US for that, considering that the US's military is basically EU's military as well. A similar albeit weaker argument could be made about China and India's emissions as well, considering where all there manufactured goods go.  16:59, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Last edit for a bit, I promise. The issue with clothes isn't that we should be using "sustainable practices" and "green energy", but rather that we shouldn't be consuming as much as we do in the first place.  The "reduce, reuse, recycle" phrase lists "reduce" first for a reason.  17:09, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Europe has more armed forces personnel than the USA has. Some Americans have very strange ideas about their military and those of the rest of the Western world.  Shabi  DOO  17:13, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 25,000 more people, yes, but "personnel" is not the same as "strength", and they certainly don't fart out enough CO2 to matter. The US has 11 carriers, all of them super-carrier class, whereas the EU has 6, only one of which is a super-carrier.  The EU has more ships, but they are almost all smaller support or patrol ships.  The US also has the most aircraft, 3300 of which are combat related which is more than double the EU's 1600, and none of them have "green" emissions.  The US has 8700 main battle tanks, compared to the EU's 7300.  17:44, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Having more toys, spending an absurd amount of money and pumping out more CO2 doesn't make your military "Europe's mililitary" too. Zheesh. Talk about illusions of grandeur. Shabi  DOO  17:58, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Disillusionment, you mean. I'd rather Europe defend its own ass than depend up the US to protect it.  That's kind of what Trump was bitching about with regards to NATO budgets, as all members are required to spend 2+% of their GDP on their militaries, whereas a lot of the countries had been spending less knowing that the other countries would pay for it.  It's known as the Free Rider problem.
 * I mean, let's look at all the times the US has been Europe's bitch when it comes to solving Europe's problems or doing its dirty work.
 * WWI has fuck-all to do with the US, but the US gets suckered in to helping France and Britain.
 * WWII, sure, the Russians did the heavy lifting, but it wasn't the US's fight.
 * Vietnam, France wants to keep abusing its colonial possessions and has the US do it for them.
 * Iran, Mossadegh wants to stop foreigners extorting their oil, the UK somehow convinces the US to install the Shah so that the UK keeps getting money.
 * Yugoslavia. This is most definitely Europe's problem, but the EU waits years until the US finally steps in to put a halt to the genocides.  18:15, 12 July 2021 (UTC)


 * We've kind of derailed from climate change, but as far as military "dependence" / alliance between the US and Europe, I'm kind of expecting less of that in the future. Europe knows as well as anyone else that the force behind the 2016-2020 foreign policy wharrgarbl is not just one single Angry Baby, and that the threats from China and Russia are growing these days. So while the post-WWII military alliances aren't going away, I've seen an awful lot of noise recently about creating a EU force on top of the national forces. Maybe that won't happen, but there probably will be at least *some* push for reducing American dependencies, in case America ends up under the leadership of another Angry Baby and ends up being unreliable against various threats. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 18:36, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * As the "Patriot" form of American Nationalist, I do hope so. I believe the US is safer with a large number of strong allies than just a single strong military.  20:02, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Using reason against an nutty explanation of things
Because it'd be just too convenient for me to not succumb to my OCD, I have been looking into Mandela Effect stuff. One thing that stood out to me was sex and the city, a lot of people remember it as sex in the city. Naturally, the most likely explanations is that the two sound very similar (literally a change of one word) and it just kind of got spread round. However, people use things like written reviews to "prove" that it was called sex IN the city (a bunch of reviews from news paper archives where it uses 'in' instead of 'and'). The most logical explanation is that, like many people, they just got it wrong. But, somehow, they insist that this proves that ion a separate universe it was always called sex in the city, and that these clippings are "residue" (???) from the other timeline. Granted, looking through the news papers, it does seem like it was misremembered a lot of times, even some cinema ads put it as 'in' instead of 'and'. I just feel like I'm the crazy one here because I've spent so much time on the nutty sites where people just assert that this is evidence of of universe shifting (?), that it makes me feel like I'm in the minority for a more down-to-earth explanation. Because I'm a bloody idiot, can someone point blank explain to me if these news paper reviews are proof of universe shifting or if there's a more rational explanation? I know it's odd considering I know it's not but compulsions I guess. Fun fact, in Polish, it's called "Seks w wielkim miesce" which translates to "sex in the big city" which no doubt has contributed to the confusion for some people. Honestly though, this is driving me insane as people are claiming stuff like this is "excellent residue" to further this nonsensical interpretation of the phenomena--WMS (talk) 21:22, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It's called the Mandela Effect. And there's your explanation. Really, what you started with is the endpoint. Kencolt (talk) 21:36, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You can either accept that human memory is shitty and fallible (duh), or you can accept that people and objects just randomly jump between universes (and how the hell would that even work). Reading about this kind of stuff is fun, but you must remember that our world is boring and people are stupid.  22:11, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Occam’s Lady Bic Razor Antigem (talk) 11:13, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I could have sworn that in my universe that show was called Nookie in New York. Spud (talk) 14:13, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Someone call the TVA. Severe variant here. Kencolt (talk) 20:04, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Nazi punching
just been doing some bits on oswald mosley's page and i was intrigued to find he had a jewish bodyguard ted 'kid' lewis.

anyways, this made me laugh 'in his biography of his father, Morton Lewis describes how he was taken along by his father when he went to quit Mosley's movement. It involves Lewis violently arguing with Mosley and a pair of his henchmen at their headquarters, leaving the former reeling on the ground and the other two out cold. Then, after leaving, Lewis is described as returning to the building on a whim and knocking out two more of Mosley's guards without provocation.' AMassiveGay (talk) 14:35, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That's the weird thing about Anti-Semites. They could hire Jewish accountants, get represented in court by Jewish lawyers, have surgery performed by Jewish doctors, but still hate Jews.  14:57, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * thing is, mosley didnt start out as an anti semite. that came later when he turned to fascism. lewis even stood as a candidate for the new party. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:01, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe he didn't start out that way, but I get the impression that the racism was always there before devolving into a frothing lunatic. Since this topic is pre-Godwinned, I'm quite sure Hitler's middle school years weren't full of him ranting like a lunatic about Jews, that came later.  16:30, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * maybe so, and its common for bigots of all kinds to make exceptions 'you are alright, its all them others' when it suits them (just been watchng a youtube about the jewish generals running the luftewaffe), but with mosley i was kind of noting that he had plenty of jewish supporters early because he wasnt the face of british fascism early on and that their support wasnt as bizarre as it would otherwise have been. (i ony really bring that here because its playing on my mind after going over our mosley article, and seeing much 'surprise' written in to it at who supported the fucknut before he outed himself as the worst kind of fucknut. it just erks me is all. i just wanted to share the punching story) AMassiveGay (talk) 19:21, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * i do think its an interesting question, how do these people come into their odious beliefs, whether some critical experiences and exposure to such vitriol converted an otherwise tolerant individual, if its the product of being born and raised in a situation where everyone espouses that shit, or its pervasive background noise not really thought about or acknowledged, but someone reason they really start to go with it. it probably doesnt matter too much once someone is virulently bigoted i guess, but does for dealing with prejudice in society at large. or dealing relatives who have gotten more extreme in their prejudices as they age, i can attest to that being a real ballache AMassiveGay (talk) 19:34, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I think my edits to the mass shooter page talk about that to some extent. Nearly every mass shooter has 4 things in common; Childhood Trauma, Crisis Point, Study, and Access to Method.  I'd imagine extreme racists have it similar, but don't go down the path of mass murder, because the overwhelming majority of people who have trauma in their lives aren't mass murderers.  For the Racist, they have a terrible childhood, they have some crisis point such as job loss or divorce, then a group of racists make them feel welcome and teach that their problems are the fault of some external group, and now you have a new Klansman.
 * The real question we should ask is, does there even need to be underlying racism before someone gets converted to far right extremism? My initial gut feeling was "yes", but now that I'm thinking about it, I'm not so sure...  19:53, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * looking at some articles a while back about radicalisation via the internet, i think that though it would help, its not a prerequisite. you dont just start out with the racism or whatever extreme views you want to implant, you start out making them feel welcome, slowly cutting them of from friends or family, and increasing the amount propaganda until all friends are extremists and and all the news/information sources they look at are from extremists. milk before meat is the term i think that applies. i think we have an article on it.


 * you dont even necessarily need anyone to actively radicalise someone. the guy who drove his van into people coming out of finsbury mosque radicalised himself just believing the worst stories from the press, then finding even worse when looking on the web till its all he looked at and became obsessed with it.


 * back in the good old days, you needed to find a flyer under the wiper of your car or know someone with dubious tattoos to get involved with the more extreme ends of prejudice. you had to have dedication to the cause before you'd even get involved or know how to. the wonders of the internet you can spread you message far and wide with ease, the vulnerable getting sucked in on accident. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:20, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Just to put the point out there for those who might overlook it: anyone who can be talked into being a racist, can be talked out of it. How can one distinguish the ones who can be reasoned with from the incorrigible? I don't imagine fisticuffs is fit for any useful purpose. Ariel31459 (talk) 23:23, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * There are people and organisations that work to deradicalise members of far right groups. I would not recommend anyone just rolling up to their hang outs and expect a nice chat. I dare say most would attempt to talk reason if racism appeared in conversation with a work colleague or family member. Everywhere else they are encountered, good faith arguments are not forth coming. Discussion is not usually their intention at a rally of some kind, or on twitter, or here even. Shouting down the opposition, to harrass and intimidate, is usually the goal. Or to provoke a response. in the real world, thats the excuse for a tear up they are hoping for. We are not all boxing champions. But Its physical strength they value not intellectual rigor. Punching out the pricks might not be the best solution and be ill advised, but it is funny seeing them knocked out cold with such ease. That would have stung for longer than any bruises lasted. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:22, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It's worth reading this article interviewing various members of 1980s punk rock groups, which had a skinhead subculture that was locked in a sometimes violent culture conflict between the mere working class Oi! crowd and the legitimate Nazi punks. The problem back then in the punk subculture was that the racist skinheads, who were always a shithead small minority, tended to have many that were violent dicks wanting to start trouble. In comparison with those old Reagan / Thatcher times, at least, the modern Nazi crowd has become so much more laughable in many respects, drifting towards that camp that Henry Rollins accurately describes as not able to "make it through a week of Army boot camp, much less the Third Reich". When I think of a modern alt-right group like the Proud Boys or whatnot, I tend to think of pudgy middle age white men cosplaying through various type of shitty Fight Club fantasies. More mid-life crisis loser than master race. You still need to treat these groups with a bit of seriousness, the whole reason the 2021 U.S. Capitol riot happened was because the police barely took this group seriously after all. But generally speaking, unless the threat of violence is serious, I tend to think the appropriate response is often somewhere between ignoring them for being the useless lump of carbon compounds they are, to mocking them for wasting their precious years on the Earth devoting so much energy to hating others. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 13:07, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

A Humble Request
Hello! I am a user of RationalWiki who much appreciates the hard work done by this community, but this is the first time I am posting on the site, so my most deep apologies for any disruption, irregularities or other transgressions that may be caused by this post. I have nothing but respect for you, and I wish to improve this site. There are two new-sprung sources of vileness, of the sadly common anti-semitic source. One is the grotesque Larry Romanoff, who supports crankery of a tired type (Rothschild central banks, International Jewish Conspiracy, the works) and runs a website linked here: https://www.moonofshanghai.com/ (apologies, I can not seem to link it). Second is the base Stephen Goodson, another anti-semite who wrote a several page book called "A History of Central Banking and the Enslavement of Mankind" (https://constitutionwatch.com.au/wp-content/uploads/A-History-of-Central-Banking-and-the-Enslavement-of-Mankind-Stephen-Mitford-Goodson.pdf) which, among the standard hoax quotes and stupid arguements, distributes ideas absurd even for his ilk: Jews are responsable, through usury of almost every assassination, revolution, war and atrocity since the fall of Rome, and praises tyrants like Qaddafi, Hitler, Stalin, Napoleon and more for their allegedly "state-owned banks". He distributes the "Hitler's pre-emptive war" conspiracy and even, if you can believe it, that Nuke-Bombs were not dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. if this post is to bunched together, my sincere apologies, but I would be euphoric if these grotesque people were to be shown as idiots and liars, who are poor in theory and literature, base and impotent. 96.230.207.83 (talk) 04:18, 14 July 2021 (UTC) An Advocate
 * For all his bad, Gadaffi did abolish the slave trade in Libya and helped sponsor numerous national liberation movements throughout the world. Aside from that, this does seem missional, but I'm not sure how notable these folks are. — <font color="Purple">Oxyaena <font color="Red">Harass  13:35, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Sigh... Can we not engage in Gadaffi apologia? A cursory amount of research disproves the idea that the man did much of anything out of the goodness of his heart. 13:59, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * As one person on 4Chan of all things said: "These people are writing in a certain body of tradition... a series of books stretching back for many decades which all regurgitate the same hoax quotes, slipshod scholarship, and silly arguments".
 * If I am to request one thing from you good people, it is a total debunking, ideally point by point of the "Rothschild owned central banks" theory, as this is the theory that engenders all the other theories they enspouse. thank you for your time.
 * P.S, is it spelt "Qaddafi" of "Gaddafi"? I have read both and do not want to be offensive. Thank you.96.230.207.83 (talk) 14:11, 14 July 2021 (UTC)An Advocate
 * We are a wiki and welcome contributions. You are welcome to edit so long as your claims can be backed up by reputable sources.  14:25, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I will say my first glance is the people mentioned aren't quite notable enough, at least from my perspective. (But maybe there's more information out there I missed!)
 * Larry Romanoff made the news last year with this article that cited Chinese propaganda rags to suggest that the COVID-19 virus came from the United States. (As if the origin matters for some reason, but the science currently says, it most likely didn't.) It's a listicle dot in our GlobalResearch article, albeit under the original, currently dead, link. Other than that, he does not seem terribly notable, although based on his Unz Review articles he's an anti-Western China apologist, which is a little different than standard conspiratorial fare. (Romanoff still digs the anti-Semitic tropes that the Jewish editor of The Unz Review,, loves for some reason though.)
 * *is* slightly notable as he was a director of South Africa's reserve bank in the early 2000s and ran a fringe political party there. He's also a Holocaust denier, so the few media stories I see on him are mainly how a South Africa reserve banker is a Holocaust denier. He also apparently contributes to a kinda obscure magazine dedicated to being all srs about the "Hitler did nothing wrong" trope called the Barnes Review. Probably this is not enough material for an article, unfortunately. It's worth noting that Barnes Review is mentioned in our article on Willis Carto, a far more notable shithead.
 * We do have a article on the Rothschild conspiracy theory crapola as well as a more over-arching article on this trope under International Jewish conspiracy, and if you feel these are not comprehensive enough you are welcome to expand it. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 14:33, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your replies and suggestions, and I hope that this topic is expanded upon.
 * I believe that the "Rothschild owned central banks" is so prevalent in the gutters of the internet that it deserves it's own article and refutation, much like how the International Jewish Conspiracy is so prevalent it has a page seperate from the mass of factory-standard NWO conspiracies.
 * I am happy to provide this: https://famguardian.org/Subjects/MoneyBanking/FederalReserve/FRconspire/FRconspire.htm, which is a debunking of general points made by these "theorists", but I personally do not believe I possess the skills required to do this topic justice. Thank you.96.230.207.83 (talk) 15:13, 14 July 2021 (UTC)An Advocate

Covid Off-Topic

 * China's culture of lies prevented earlier action on COVID
 * this was most likely caused by poor health and safety regulations in China, if not the Wuhan lab itself
 * China was clearly waiting until after the virus had spread too much so they could claim it was the fault of foreigners.
 * Yes, the origin matters. 15:01, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Only because China were authoritarian cover-up dicks, yes. From an evolution perspective, though, the virus doesn't care to much. The sort of thing that triggered COVID-19 could happen anywhere. The problem with "where did the virus start" type questions is that nationalist shitheads tend to use the origin to, well, be nationalist shitheads. It would be a nicer world if people helped each other out on, say, implementing hygienic protocol to reduce zoonosis risk (something that actually could reduce these type of pandemics). But we live in a world where the US right-wing hive mind in particular prefers to just blindly point fingers and angrily rant at Others... whether it's China, Jews, Blacks, or even Bill Gates. And some do this while rejecting what frankly is a pretty remarkable development, an effective vaccine using a brand new vaccine technique that could offer hope for other diseases as well, cranked out in a remarkably short period of time, too. Oh well. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 15:43, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Bullshit Cory. China clearly covered up the pandemic because admitting such a thing was occurring would undermine the illusion of omni-competency, and therefore the authority, of the CCP. So basically the same shit the Soviets did with the Chernobyl incident... 16:02, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * @Pan It's not only the cover up, it's the fact that they likely aren't doing what needs to be done to prevent it from happening again. A few years ago, we did get some horrific news from China; bacteria had become immune to one of our anti-biotics of last resort.  Factory farms didn't exist in the 19th century simply because the animals would die from disease without massive amounts of antibiotics, and as bad as the factory farms in the US are, China's are oh so much worse.  Do you think China has done anything to fix the problem since then? Do you think COVID will be the last disease to be caused by poor Chinese sanitation?   16:07, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Blind faith rots your brain. Cory, you're a shit skeptic. 16:22, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It's sort of an open secret that meatpacking plants in the US have fuck all in terms of sanitation standards, up to and including employees urinating under the conveyor belts because they aren't allowed bathroom breaks. But keep telling yourself that those dirty yellow chinks are the only ones with poor hygiene standards in their industries... 16:27, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * COVID will be far from the last disease caused in part by poor sanitation habits, period. China is not the only developing nation with some poor sanitation habits.( Some habits however are borne out of necessity, where one does not having the luxury of being in a developed world economy. Some aren't.) I also, frankly, cannot rule out zoonosis occurring at one of the developed world factory farms due to poor hygienic habits (as a hypothetical example, imagine if, which originated in the UK, was far more infectious then it was). So... okay? China's opaqueness and authoritarian dick-ery is a problem for sure, we all know about Xi Jinping being a nationalist dick. But he's far from the only one. Science really shouldn't step into nationalized politics unless they have to. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 16:36, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * So... your proof that the US's meatpacking industry is just as bad as China, is from OSHA doing its job? The Chinese are pretty much like 1890's Gilded Age US.  Hopefully they'll grow out of it, and they definitely can do so, but they haven't yet.  17:21, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * At least I can provide citations for my positions Cory. You know, instead of just relying on assertions. Oh what's that? I just linked an article about OSHA being in trouble for not doing its job properly? Oh no... But remember, the yellow chinks are worse. The dirty foreigners are always worse... American exceptionalism is a hell of a drug. 17:32, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I can't recommend HBO's Chernobyl series highly enough, because of the parallels to the handling of both COVID and climate change...
 * The Chinese aren't dirty because they are foreign, but because they are in a dictatorship obsessed with censorship. Even now,  is still held in prison for the crime of reporting on COVID conditions.  Li Wenliang was the first to blow the whistle, and while it's possible he died of COVID, I wouldn't bet money on it.  So long as reporting is illegal, it's safe to assume the worst.  18:01, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Cory when he thinks no one will push back; "China was clearly waiting until after the virus had spread too much so they could claim it was the fault of foreigners."
 * Cory when challenged on his position;"I can't recommend HBO's Chernobyl series highly enough, because of the parallels to the handling of both COVID and climate change..."
 * This is called a motte and bailey, and generally indicates intellectual dishonesty. 18:07, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * And since you brought up HBO's Chernobyl (after I fucking made the comparison you shameless hack) let me paraphrase a quote from it. "It is the official position of the Central Committee that a pandemic cannot happen in the People's Republic of China." 18:15, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * My belief is that at some point China knew it couldn't contain the virus, but if they convinced the entire world it wasn't happening there or at a much lower rate, they could then turn around and say "Oh, it's not our fault, we didn't have any cases until after everyone else!". Sure, I can't "prove" this was the exact reason, but it's the one I think makes the most sense.  18:25, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Cory, do not lie to my face. Especially don't lie when I've already called you out on it, and then called you out on your backpedaling. Your terminal inability to admit to "misspeaking" when you "correct yourself" in subsequent posts betrays your actual views. 18:29, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * "Do you think COVID will be the last disease to be caused by poor Chinese sanitation?"
 * 🤨!? Right wingers advance this thinly disguised racist question a lot. Do you realize you sound terribly like them? A hop skip away from racist "lol dog/offal eating freaks"? And that bad, horrific conditions in food distribution isn't unique to China? 19:09, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Alright, yeah, I agree that I see a problem. And yes, we do need to improve conditions here as well; bird flu likely originated on an American poultry farm, and there is absolutely no reason to believe that Spanish Flu 2.0 couldn't start from Iowa.  Not against meat on principle, but we really, really should be eating less...  19:44, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Would anyone be upset if I added "meat-eating results in disease" to the vegetarian or veganism articles? 19:48, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * There, updated that article. So something productive happened today... 20:30, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Nothing wrong with that update at all from my perspective. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 20:39, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Just gonna hop in here to reiterate that focusing on the origin of the virus is important, strictly from a scientific perspective. From a political perspective, which seems to be the driving factor in this discussion, it matters very little when we will never know any details that the authoritarian CCP doesn't want us to know. And that there are a number of "wet markets" across the US, and the opportunity for the next pandemic could happen basically anywhere there are close interactions between humans and wildlife, i.e. everywhere.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 22:42, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Complete obliviousness
Scholar Carol Anderson on the "anti-Blackness" coded into the Second Amendment And here's part of what the article says:

Sounds more like a racist history behind gun control. There's also no mention that early civil rights activists including the legendary Ida B. Wells were staunch gun rights activists. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 01:59, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Kill me now. Or better yet grow a fucking brain you juvenile little shit! This shit right here I why I blocked your useless drama baiting ass. 04:00, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you, ushistoryanalyser, read the articles you post? Or maybe you don't expect people to read what you post? Or just really really thick? Is that the troll tactic? act real fucking dumb and I've not quite sussed what the next part is. Does it involve you looking like and people thinking you are an imbecile? 10/10 if that's the plan. AMassiveGay (talk) 09:29, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I see you have no factual refutations. Unsurprising. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 15:48, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That's because there is nothing to say. Your bullshit is a combination red herring, cherry picking, and argumentum ad ignorantiam. We all know that there is racism behind historical gun control, such as, say, enacted by a B-grade actor/Governor meant to disarm people like, say, those pesky Black Panthers. We also know that there is a bit of a Venn diagram match between NRA members and the often racist members of the militia movement, and that regardless, white identity politics has significantly increased in America's increasingly shitty gun culture over the last few decades. We also know that a Z-grade reality star/Angry Baby has inspired increases in membership in black gun clubs like the . I'd say, well, duh to that, these days I wonder if a black person would feel that comfortable at a shooting range considering how intertwined white male identity politics is with guns. The final thing is that, generally speaking, the concern of the modern gun control movement tends to not give a shit about these culture wars. Mainly, the concern tends to be the risk that their poor kid might be shot up in a classroom by some yahoo asshole with a gun, or some other gun violence situation. There weren't many mass shootings back in the days of the Mulford Act. Gun culture wasn't so shitty. The NRA back then mainly was about outdoor recreation. Not now. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 16:20, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * And the Mulford Act was opposed by conservative congressman John G. Schmitz. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 16:28, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, a Bircher and also so racist, reportedly the Birchers actually kicked him out for his racist remarks in 1978 (that bad, eh?). Kind of a foreshadowing of the New Direction the NRA would take gun culture after the . PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 17:06, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Get rid of the filibuster
The presented arguments by moronic idiots on the right in favor of retaining it are utterly irrational, that which they will one day recognize when their side takes over the Kentucky turtle's congressional graveyard *ahem* U.S. Senate. Democrats also filibuster legislation. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 02:34, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Reading through that article, I find it interesting what you consider misuse of the filibuster. Blocking the expansion of healthcare access? No. Blocking attempts to improve voting protections? No. Blocking a performative bill to force doctors to try to deliver what is in the majority of cases a soup of cells? "YES END THE FILIBUSTER IT'S A THREAT TO DEMOCRACY!!!" Pathetic and devoid of merit. 10:59, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * And it's from two years ago. Gods what a joke... 11:06, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * In many countries filibusters have time limits. For example in Canada and many Westminster systems each MP can speak for a certain period of time but after so many hours it ends. I understand the filibuster as a short term delaying technique (if used selectively) or to call attention to legislation. I don't agree with filibusters indefinitely disrupting the democratic process. If a government has a majority they should be able to govern, as unpleasant as the minority may find the legislation. If it is unconstitutional legislation then it will be challenged. The US senate filibuster rule is completely absurd. Is it any wonder the US is so far behind the rest of the western world in so much legislation? Shabi  DOO  13:12, 15 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Interestingly, the filibuster wasn't always as widely used as it is now. Yes, there should be time limits, or perhaps some sort of actual penalty for holding things up.  13:52, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Please read this before spouting further ignorant ramblings. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 15:38, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Please fix the Wikipedia article you complained about and were provided solutions on before bringing yet more inherent-bad-faith arguments. If you're just here to count coup, you're wasting your time and everyone else's. Semipenultimate (talk) 16:00, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No. Now fuck off. Fucking sealoin... 17:25, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Sharing Heritage Foundation, PragerU, Townhall? Eh? Again, explains the smell. 19:31, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Does USHA's topic ban include talking about this stuff on SB? 19:54, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, it currently does not. At the moment, t only applies to mainspace articles and their talk pages. Spud (talk) 11:33, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I gotta bring this in
I'm sure it will be added to the 2021 U.S. Capitol riot‎‎ page but I just read about a Mormon Mother Boy in WaPo and it's just too stupid not to share. Nathan Wayne Entrekin, who entered the capital grounds on January 6th was dressed in a Toga over his clothes, complete with a replica sword sheath. Besides filming his entire felony for his mother, there is this little nugget:

My emphasis for this just insane Doublethink. -RipCityLiberal (talk) 16:22, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not likely to be added since the listicle page was removed by people who didn't want to name-and-shame. Bongolian (talk) 19:57, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You guys could put it in the Mormonism article. 20:26, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

RWF nominations!
They have begun! - If you think someone makes a good fit for the board (or if you think you do, then go on over and register. Fair warning if you want to register though; the RWF is a public organization which means that this will make your position as a board member public and tied to your IRL identity. If you consider that to be an unacceptable risk, don't nominate yourself. Outside of that, I'm fairly sure you must be an adult to register? Anyway, please send in and accept/deny your nominations. Techpriest (talk) 08:47, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Bumping this to stop it from being archived by inferno early. <small style="font-size:85%;">Bumping thread for 10 days. Techpriest (talk) 22:28, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Just repostin here to get more attention in case it doesn’t get seen elsewhere. So, Il Duce nominated me and I just got a couple questions. 1) when it says I have to hand over my “real name”, is that my legal name or the one I actually go by? I’ve been having trouble getting it legally changed and don’t wanna give anyone my deadname. 2) I literally don’t know how money works. I’ve never had an official paid job and have never made enough money to pay taxes. How disqualifying is this? I mean I’d like to get involved and the guidelines say that being Good At The Economy is not necessarily a prerequisite, but idk. Thanks a bunch. 03:56, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * And I've answered there. You've really got nothing to worry about on either point. Spud (talk) 04:58, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Anti-Trans argument I cannot stand
"Transwomen are going into women's bathrooms to assault our daughters"

One reason I hate that argument, other than cases of anything like that are extremely minimal, is that no transphobe has every said directly, "Transmen are going into men's bathrooms to assault our sons". Funny how that is never mentioned, only women's bathrooms.

That would imply that women never assault males. If you think about it, the argument is also sexist. It implies that girls are merely damsels in distress and are weak (best term I could think of. There is likely a different term). It also ignores that there are already pedophiles who go into either bathroom.

I seriously don't see why unisex bathrooms cannot be a thing. Both sides would be (theoretically) happy. --Tgal (talk) 23:53, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * There is a concept called the "family restroom" in many areas in the United States. This is a unisex, single stall with amenities (changing stations, extra space for strollers and wheelchairs etc.) that is designed more typically for either families with small children that need adult supervision still, or the elderly and disabled. So this concept basically already exists, that is, if trans people care to use it. Which they may not. Add to this that in many situations such as festivals, you're gonna have unisex porta-potties, and that out in the woods, there's no such thing as separate bathrooms at all.
 * The trans bathroom thing is a boogieman topic. There are certain people who are chickenshit afraid of the fact that other cultures exist and/or want to feel morally superior and/or are just bigoted as hell. Certain politicians exploit these people. As the world gets more connected, homosexuals have become less of a boogieman, in America at least. They are just "normal folk" who happen to like the same gender, and the chances are better you might know one thses days Compared to homosexuals, transgendered are much rarer. Thus, they are a great boogeyman. The chances of a bigot actually meeting a trans and recognize that they are just "normal folk" who happen to have gender dysphoria is much lower.
 * Under normal circumstances, I don't think anyone really gives a shit. I never heard much concern about the "trans bathroom issue" until Republicans made it an issue in, what, the mid 2010s or so? My impression is that very few gives a shit about this issue in Europe or Asia. Most countries have some form of a bigot crowd but the nature of this crowd varies. America has a certain crowd that is easily led, "holier than thou" idiots who seem to thrive on anger and self-righteousness and don't really think too much. Currently this frothing at the mouth crowd is frothing at the mouth over "critical race theory" (Black people oogie boogie! And academia! Why, these people might indoctrinate you! (Into a high paying job, but I digress.)) At any rate, the trans bathroom oogie boogie appears to be on hold at the moment. So I guess we're back at the state where standard society custom dictates restroom protocol, and life goes on, until the Republicans feel the need to tickle the bigots with this topic again I guess. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 12:46, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It wasn't an issue until the 2010's because trans people were invisible until then. The LGBT community didn't really give too much attention to them, the big issue was same-sex marriage and adoptions, there were no openly trans actors in movies.  Caitlyn Jenner was still a guy who looked like your aging lesbian aunt.
 * Once the Gay community got what it wanted, then attention began focusing on Trans issues. 13:33, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It's also an interesting game-theory situation. Let's say you are somewhat supportive of Gay Rights but despise Trans more than you support Gay.  You believe that, barring a bizarre situation such as Iran, so long as the fight is over Gay Rights, Trans will stay out of the picture.  Thus, you might oppose Gay Rights simply to prevent Trans Rights, even though you actually wouldn't be too horrified about same-sex marriage.  Thus, strange claims about how gay marriage will lead to sex with ducks.  13:42, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * While I understand what you are referring to Grammarcommie and you did not mean it to come out that way, I would recommend avoiding a statement like "once they got what they wanted". Gay marriage is, in fact, a fairly small priority compared with what, I believe, most gay people actually want, which is to not be bullied, insulted, disparaged, ridiculed, discriminated against, "othered", beaten up, cast out of homes/families and murdered. This all happens every day to a shit ton of gay people in Western countries. Acceptance and tollerance exists in small pockets and some groups of people but hiding oneself, not holding hands, butching up at work, not talking about your partner and pretending to be straight and being mercilessly bullied in school still happens like there is no tomorrow. Gay marriage is a wonderful triumph, but honestly, we have not even begun to approach getting what we want. Shabi  DOO  13:57, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, poor choice of words. Fair point.
 * It's interesting to note that Obergefell v Hodges (SCOTUS case for gay marriage) happened a mere 6 years ago, and same-sex marriage is currently approved of by nearly 2/3 of the country. Loving v Virgina was 1967, and it wasn't until 1991 that even half of Americans supported interracial marriage.  Change is happening so rapidly that in a few years, it will be better to be a Gay White guy than a Straight Black guy.  Though in fairness, a Gay guy is more likely to have Homophobic parents than a Black guy is to have White Supremacist parents...  14:25, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Trans people have always been marginalized, but we've also always played a seminal role in the queer liberation movement. A huge chunk of the people involved in Stonewall were trans after all. — <font color="Purple">Oxyaena <font color="Red">Harass  18:27, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * And Nazi book burning?  The most infamous pictures were those of Magnus Hirschfeld's works, the guy who coined the term "transsexual".  18:34, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * . I don't get what's gotten into people about Stonewall in recent years, the people who were actually there have basically said they were mostly white and almost all men. Marsha Johnson and Sylvia Rivera are notoriously unreliable sources, even they basically admitted they were elsewhere and doped up on heroin that night. And also, having actually been to Greenwich Village, it's not exactly bad but there are far more interesting places to see in lower Manhattan. I just live, let live, and encourage others to do the same; beyond that, I've been burned by both straight and gay people who've gotten the wrong idea about me wanting to date them (I've never dated or wanted to, and probably never will) and it's all the same to me, they can all fucking drop dead. The Blade of the Northern Lights (<font face="MS Mincho" color="black">話して下さい ) 05:33, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Unisex bathrooms can be a thing where people will accept them. It may be too much to hope for that to be a common practice apart from single use toilets. A very good reason that you never hear people complain about transmen using men's toilets is men are not likely to complain about female bodies in their proximity, possibly because it would appear to be unmanly to be concerned about them for any practical reason. Also, male-bodied women with higher testosterone are more likely to be aggressive about their preferences, which might make them more evidently obstreperous. UncleKrampus (talk) 02:49, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Moved from Talk:Saloon Bar
Hey I’m new here, how can I get to know people and become a good user —Dipper318 (talk) 04:51, 17 July 2021 (UTC) dipper
 * By posting edits to articles which improve the mission (see the template on your talk-page) and by getting involved in good-faith conversations. And Welcome :-) Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 12:42, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * By scattering your enemy, driving him before you, seeing his cities reduced to ashes, seeing those who love him shrouded in tears, and gathering into your bosom his wives and daughters. That is how you become a good user. — <font color="Purple">Oxyaena <font color="Red">Harass  14:03, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That's how you get autopatrolled at least. Then the fun begins.Evilatheistheathen (talk) 15:22, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oxyaena - what if you are of the female persuasion (and you wish to do more than set the wives and daughters free)? Anna Livia (talk) 16:53, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Is that a koan? UncleKrampus (talk) 17:57, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 無. The Blade of the Northern Lights (<font face="MS Mincho" color="black">話して下さい ) 05:35, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I am a lesbian, so..... yeah. — <font color="Purple">Oxyaena <font color="Red">Harass  05:44, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

LMAO
Scouring through Twitter due to boredom, and found this: "When it came time for the Senate to vote on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Republican Sen. John Tower voted against it, while Texas's other senator -- Ralph Yarborough, a rare liberal Southern Democrat -- voted for it." "rare liberal Southern Democrat" Of course, that's ignoring the likes of, , , , , , , , , , and basically every other Southern Democrat who aligned with New Deal economics. Who were the primary opponents of the Food Stamp Act of 1964? Not the Southern Democrats, most of whom voted "yea". 

Perhaps this in particular has been addressed elsewhere (maybe not by me?) but forgotten? Oh well. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 21:17, 18 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I don’t know what I’m supposed to take away from this. Are you saying the Dixiecrats weren’t all bad for voting for food stamps, or are you saying that food stamps are bad because they voted for it? 21:35, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Neither. My point is that the convenient "Southern Democrats were conservatives" narrative isn't accurate. Also DuceMoosolini, note my usage of the term "Southern Democrat" rather than "Dixiecrat;" not all the segregationists of the South joined the States' Rights Democratic Party revolt of 1948 against President Harry S. Truman. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 21:40, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I’m on my phone, so I don’t feel like tapping out the full label. It is a good point to remember that the Southern D’s were often in favor of economic programs, and I’ve noted in the Jim Crow article how New Deal housing programs were used to promote segregation through redlining. However, I think the original tweet was using “liberal” to refer to supporting personal freedom in racial issues, in which case most Southern D’s were very not liberal. 21:45, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, Kruse's lack of a further specification for his usage of the term "liberal" in the specific context would lead readers to assume he was referring in a generic sense and not on any particular issues. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 21:50, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * There's a large amount of variations of how various places interpret the generic word "liberal" and "conservative", which makes the tendency to snarl word / promote either sense in the United States (also happens elsewhere but differently) a bit amusing. I think on occasion some of our European visitors have been confused by some in RW's "liberal" category, because in some countries, "liberal" tends to more refer to the laissez-faire capitalism philosophy (one only needs to Google translate the French Wikipedia article on "libéralisme" to see that, it's also kinda reflected in the English wiki top level article as well). Generally speaking in the US, I believe the single word "liberal" tends to mean, but "your mileage may vary", especially with the braindead snarl word usage. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 22:15, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the point UShist is making is that "social liberal" under the New Deal, in the 1960s, and today are not all the same thing. Dutchbag (talk) 00:51, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Many "social liberals" under the New Deal were also segregationists. FDR and Lyndon Johnson being two of the most prominent examples. FDR did not allow blacks into the polio clinic he founded. And everyone knows about Johnson's views on race prior to 1965 and even afterward. Dutchbag (talk) 00:52, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, correct. And it wasn't just Johnson that used the n-word, as his hero FDR did too. Based on The Path to Power by biographer, Johnson's entire political career began as a steadfast ally of Roosevelt, that which even the court-packing effort wasn't an exception to. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 01:57, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Not sure if this is allowed....but
I have a twitch channel, and I'm playing Sonic 06 right now if anyone wants to kill some time. 23:48, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Why in Darwin’s name are you playing that pile of crap? 23:53, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

The American flag could use a change (No I am not an anti-American by any means. Keep you panties out of a knot Trumplicans)
To me, it has developed so many unwanted connotations to it, two major ones being the clusterfucks by the names of Vietnam War and the War on Terror. Another one being the oppression of ethnic minorities, LGBT+ people and disabled people.

My opinion though. I love my country despite wanting a change. To right wing nuts: this does not make me anti-American. That is just your delusion. --Tgal (talk) 23:24, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think the flag design should be changed. I think we should make it stand for something else.  If you managed to remove the people in power who would prevent you from changing it, you also would have removed the people who made it problematic to begin with.  MirrorIrorriM (talk) 01:35, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * We could change it by adding some long overdue extra stars for new states like Puerto Rico, DC, and Guam. 03:33, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I took the OP as meaning a complete redesign to the point where you wouldn't even recognize it. I can agree with adding more stars.  MirrorIrorriM (talk) 17:25, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

There is a huge problem with getting rid of your flag or making any significant changes - the huge ball ache it would be agreeing on a replacement. Honestly, is it so tarnished you want to go through all the arguments that will produce and no one will like the design anyway but it's not like the current one gets slapped on anything and everything because it's a design classic.


 * This is like the conversation over national anthems. You get what you get because whatever the faults they not worth the hassle doing anything about it and besides, everyone knows that's your anthem it would confuse everyone changing it now. Same with your flag. Its already on everything. It's the us that carries the baggage not the flag. Need more than a new flag to fix that if it's an issue for you.AMassiveGay (talk) 08:45, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems I have been living under a rock, so forgive me, but which major and ethnically-diverse country doesn't have serious issues regarding minority and LGBT rights? Brazil?  Quick googling says Black/Mixed Brazilians live 6 years less than White Brazilians, compared to a 4 year gap in the US.  France?  They just avoid collecting information on race so they can pretend there's no problems, but

50% of their prison population is Muslim in spite of only being 10% of the population at most, which is far, far worse than the US's 14% AfrAm to 34% in prisons. Britain? Again, massive difference in Life Expectancies for Black people. 14:59, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I would love changes to the American flag, especially if the colors reflected the melting pot, that is the American experiment, and didn't just use the same tired colors that basically every former British colony has-RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:07, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Consider the UK national anthem - the second verse is somewhat minatory and the last actively disses Scotland: while most people know the other version exists they have never actually encountered it. And many people do't know which way up to hang the Union flag. Anna Livia (talk) 19:33, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It's easy, the red edge goes counter-clockwise, like a swastika. 19:56, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * i dont know the words to our national anthem nor do i know to right way up union flags goes. i dont care either because 1 is a dreary song and the other is a garish piece of cloth. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:37, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

--TH (talk) 02:21, 20 July 2021 (UTC)Honestly I feel like the best kind of flag is the one that changes every few years (hot take but I kinda wish the flag could change with every Presidential term)

This is what happens when you do drugs: You get a whacked out conspiracy theory (This is not a joke)
https://birdsarentreal.com/pages/who-are-we

Who knew that it was possible to exterminate every bird on the planet and replace them with robotic drones. Q Anon is already a thing so why not claim that birds somehow don't exist. These people really need a psychiatrist. --Tgal (talk) 22:34, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * As batshit crazy as this is, I think this seems actually reasonable when you compare it to the billions of people who believe that an invisible entity in the sky created everything, reads your mind and observes you all the time, is moral yet drowned nearly every human, cares deeply about your sex life and will torture you for eternity if you do not believe in him. I mean honestly, birds being replaces by machines almost sounds logical in comparison (as demented as it birds aren't real is). Shabi  DOO  23:07, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait. You mean every time I go for a chicken sandwich, moo goo gai pan, or KFC I've been eating robots?  Kencolt ([[User

talk:Kencolt|talk]]) 23:27, 18 July 2021 (UTC) --TH (talk) 02:29, 20 July 2021 (UTC)someone should tell "That Vegan Teacher"
 * No, you’ve been eating soylent green. 23:54, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure this is a poe. 03:02, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Apparently not. It's a real conspiracy theory.  It's been bought up here-- https://notalwaysright.com/we-thought-birds-are-drones-was-just-a-meme/226912/ Kencolt (talk) 08:52, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey, it made Audubon, I'm sure they're happy to find out this "news". There's shades of some aspects QAnon in that it seems like a prank done in 2017 by one Peter McIndoe caught some traction, and now he's getting ready to make some money off of both those who find joy in the silliness of the meme, and the naive that actually believe in it. McIndoe hasn't broken yet it seems, but the "active since 1976" / fake 1987 ad on that about page is a bit of a clue. Poe needs a modification of how if one creates a Poe-ish parody of batshit insane conspiracy theories, one should not be surprised if actual batshit insane people actually start following it. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 12:37, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You can train birds to eat out your hands. People need to try it. Also, pet birds. 14:52, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Just to be sure and keep birds away from those little purring murderers. (Funny how the conspiracy theory mentions nothing about cats, ie, the animal that one study estimated kills 1.3-4.0 billion birds a year in the US. if only the solution to defeating surveillance networks was as easy as letting Fluffy McMew roam outdoors!) PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 15:05, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Cats only eat the real birds, so they can be replaced by the robots... 15:07, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * But seriously, what the actual fuck? At some point, I think these conspiracies existing is itself a conspiracy to convince the public to allow the government to castrate idiots, and then the government will begin its mass extermination of the useless eaters...  15:09, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually it's the other way around:keep your cats away from birds. Keep them indoors and spare them from eventually decorating the pavement too. If it gets too infested, then we'll have to treat them like the Burmese python (although we should anyway). Anyway the idea of outdoor cats keep me in a sultry mood whenever they're brought up because I'm trying my best to enjoy my backyard birds. Syeah I'm sorry if I'm not playing along here. 19:27, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I have a neighbor that lets their cats run around outdoors -- know what you mean. The only "consolation prize" of this is that there's plenty of coyotes around here. One of the neighbor's outdoor cats went missing several months ago, and the presumption was that it became coyote lunch. I have no idea why anyone would actually let their cats run around outdoors, to be honest. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 19:59, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * There's a photo of a great-horned owl taking off with a cat in the middle of the night too. Those giant owls aren't called "sky tigers" for no reason; they can take porcupines, fully grown geese, big herons, and they even attack people's heads, so if someone's cat is wandering around, why not take it too. People let their cats roam because "it's freedom/liberty" and "cats are meant for outdoors" but advice from experts do say to keep cats indoors and accommodate your patio and such; otherwise they live half as long because they'll get hurt outdoors, and while that's not fair for cats, it's also not fair for wild bird lovers or people that just like small wildlife either. 00:45, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

its not what happens when i do drugs, and i do a lot AMassiveGay (talk) 19:51, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I seem to remember remembering stuff that never happened after just recalling what taking DMT was like. But, I don't believe this guy is serious, or if he is that he thinks it matters if what he believes is true. After all, how would my life change if, a la Blade Runner, all the owls were artificial? All sorts of people believe all sorts of things not because they are believable, but because they can do it. Possibly they find the fact that it disturbs other people motivating. I like to keep that shit to myself.Zatoichi (talk) 21:40, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * “Birds aren’t real” is very obviously a joke theory. Christopher (talk) 21:44, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I find it sad that people literally believe this to be true. Our education system has failed us. --USDA Certified Organic (talk) 22:47, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * If this were "World of Darkness" I'd say some sinister technocratic cabal of mages is trying to change Consensus by reprogramming the sleepers to favor pervasive and futuristic robotics. How are these fake birds powered? Do they go off to a garage in every city, town, and country rest stop at night? Artificius (talk) 00:26, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Are we getting free ponies or what?
I see nothing here but a load of tumbleweed. Now I'm not gonna ping all the candidates, cause I know they shove their heads into this kip of a watering hole every now and again and will just probably see this anyway. But just cause y'all are basically elected by default, I would still expect some effort to woe the mob with your schmoozing. Democracy depends on it!

And we better fucking get free ponies, or we riot.

Regards, - Rairyu75  ( Talk ) 23:45, 19 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I will post my campaign later today. And I'm happy to promise the people free (pictures of) anything they want. Spud (talk) 23:53, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Free Ponies? Oh, absolutely.  I'm behind that 100%.  Ponies should not be held in bondage.  Well, yes, I am a fan of that show, but that has nothing to do with this noble fight for equine liberation. Kencolt (talk) 05:38, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * In the UK 'pony' can mean £25. Anna Livia (talk) 10:58, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * My campaign message is now up. Spud (talk) 14:44, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Perfect way to rake in money: Diploma Mill
If fundie Christians can create low quality ministry degrees for the purpose of spreading God's word to make a lot of money, why can't we? I call the idea "University of God is Cool". No longer will we need to have fundraisers. All we have to do is create a website that has ministry courses that are easy enough for a 5th grader to understand. It will be based on the Patriot Bible University model.

Charge $200 a month for course access and the courses are self-paced. Have it incorporated into a state with religious exemption laws to academic accreditation; Texas or Florida would be good places for incorporation. We have to offer Bachelor's to Doctoral degrees. As for the doctorates, have them billed as Doctor of Divinity or Doctor of Ministry. --USDA Certified Organic (talk) 00:06, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * — <font color="Purple">Oxyaena <font color="Red">Harass  10:31, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The entry level courses would cover 'RW-level snark' and 'Recognising 50 shades of twaddle.' Anna Livia (talk) 11:01, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The troll template was in response to a now removed comment, just to clarify. — <font color="Purple">Oxyaena <font color="Red">Harass  15:19, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * i did wonder AMassiveGay (talk) 17:49, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Wait wait wait
Twitter threads by historian Kevin M. Kruse are quite fascinating. Some are mostly true, others contain errors (see above section). However, this one really caught my attention. So the Texas GOP intends on omitting lessons taught to children on why the Ku Klux Klan was wrong? And this is coming from the same fellows who say "the KKK was founded by Democrats" as a response to liberal arguments that the Klan was "conservative"/"right-wing"? Especially given how the KKK heavily influenced Texas politics during the 1920s (namely the election of Klansman to the Senate), you'd think the state's elected officials nowadays would ensure that children are educated on the heinous evils that carry a heavy stain.

How bad has the stupidity, insanity and absolute derangement plaguing our current politics become? UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 21:56, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay. — <font color="Purple">Oxyaena <font color="Red">Harass  21:58, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Cute of you to think you can engage on the same level as that historian. 22:03, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * LeftyGreenMario, one does not need a position at a prestigious university to understand important knowledge. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 22:08, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Didn't say you need one. But keep in mind what kind of tools you need and realize that probably sharing PragerU and Townhall shows you can't even begin to engage. 22:22, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * UShistoryanalyzer, this video might give you a brief introduction on how to vet sources, especially online ones. I would highly recommend watching it. Also consider watching any general intro to critical thinking video Shabi  DOO  22:34, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I've dissed USHistoryanalyzer before, but sheesh, this is talking about a current news event where the Texas legislature is taking the Republican "critical race theory" dogwhistle crap to a new level and going to the level of dropping Martin Luther King Jr. from the social studies curriculum. Obviously given the electric grid shitshow in February something they should really focus on, eh? PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 23:49, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 00:03, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Guy is in zero position to comment on any of these issues that's my point. 03:07, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Should one automatically distrust any 'person, publication or group' which includes or asks about trust (apart from 'Philosophical, economics and scientific studies etc' research)? Anna Livia (talk) 08:58, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Feel like someone who cannot grasp the very simple concept of "The Republican and Democratic party switched their values since their inception", can't really be seen as a source for anything.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 16:22, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Switched values? You're gonna need a source for that claim, pal. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 16:31, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Switched values? You're gonna need a source for that claim, pal. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 16:31, 20 July 2021 (UTC)


 * While I understand that the Republicans and Democrats of today are not the same as yesteryear, and also that USHA is a bit of twit, the claim that the parties switched completely does have a serious flaw; which Democrats are really Rep and which Republicans are Dem? You don't just get to say "oh, Teddy Roosevelt and Eisenhower are now Democrats but Warren Harding is still Republican". If the switch happened in the 70's or later, then JFK is a Republican and Nixon a Democrat.  If it was the 50's or later, then FDR is a Republican.  If it was the 30's, Wilson, the guy who gave women the right to vote, was a Republican, to say nothing of Hoover and Harding being Democrats.
 * If we go all the way back, Andrew "Jackass" Jackson founded the party, and it doesn't make sense to still use the Jackass as the official mascot if his presidency isn't part of the party's history. 17:48, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Cory, shut up please... The parties shifted their platforms. The dead fucks stayed the same. 17:50, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * LMAO - GrammarCommie, your stupidity just never fades, eh? Per the 1856 GOP party platform : emphasis on right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; emphasis on due process; implicit emphasis on support of traditional marriage, implicit emphasis on importance of Second Amendment. And in the era, it was the Republicans who supported higher tariffs as opposed to the Democratic Party's support of free trade. And there was also the deeply religious Christian, a veteran of the Civil War on the Union side who led the fight against abortion, contraception, and profanity. My, how liberal they all were! UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 20:03, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course they have changed their platform. Every party has shifted their platform and focus, and it's almost impossible to find a party that has the exact same platform in 2 consecutive election cycles.  Factions move in and out of parties, priorities change, societies evolve.  But the way that the truism "the parties switched!" is generally used is to discredit one party or the other, or to claim the accomplishments of one party as really belonging to the other.  It's disingenuous and you know that, because it's never taken to its logical conclusion.  18:14, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * If we want to agree on something, I think we could agree that if racial slavery was officially still a thing today, it wouldn't be the Republicans leading the charge to get rid of it. 18:19, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Then perhaps you'll be eager to explain why the GOP is looking to dismantle federal initiatives, which since the era of Lyndon Johnson was a tool to suppress economic improvement of blacks (refer to what Johnson told Sen. Russell). And the Republican Party has opposed such programs since the 30s. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 19:56, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You might want to look at what Texas is doing to their curriculum. 20:02, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh god is the whole "Johnson created black poverty" still being argued? 20:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * [EC] DuceMoosolini, there's much of the modern-day GOP I heavily disagree with, including the Texas GOP's intended whitewash to their public school history curriculum. But the historical truths surrounding Johnson are still undeniable. And it is the liberal Democrats who support welfare more than Republicans do. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 20:06, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * LeftyGreenMario, the point is not that Johnson created black poverty. He simply suppressed further economic progress. Johnson told Russell : "These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don't move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there'll be no way of stopping them, we'll lose the filibuster and there'll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It'll be Reconstruction all over again." And he rallied most Southern Democrats in support of the Food Stamp Act of 1964. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 20:09, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Lyndon Johnson was a complicated racist. That quote was in regards to the which had nothing to do with economic initiatives. It did include voting protections. I suppose your next argument will be that the GOP's voter suppression efforts actually will improve economic conditions for black people. ::rollseyes:: PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 23:15, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Please provide further evidence that Johnson's quote was regarding voting rights as opposed to federal economic benefits, and that the current Republicans are engaging in voter suppression. Some allegations have been malarkey. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 23:22, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

This is what insurrection looks like
For everyone reading who still buys into the bullshit. 02:13, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * What in particular is being referred to? Anna Livia (talk) 08:59, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a Youtube video on the 2021 U.S. Capitol riot by the New York Times. (Direct link) Youtube seems to be having some issues today. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 15:32, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I really don't get how much cognitive dissonance you have to have to be able to look at that and deny that it was violent, or done with violent intent, or even that it was done by people who support the same side as you. How far do you have to go to not believe your eyes, to not accept some kind of accountability? In a country so built on democracy, how do you support an attack on it? -Philosophical meandering over, I just still can't believe this was allowed to happen. Jake Holmes''yell at me 17:12, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm just waiting for the effects to reach Hollywood. Like, instead of skilled terrorists and Russian agents, President Dwayne "the Rock" Johnson and VP Vin Diesel have to fight off a bunch of dumbass conspiracy theorists.  17:21, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Sounds like another episode of the Fast and Furious franchise, only a bit dumber. Thank you for introducing me to such a possibility, a professional, Hollywood movie dumber than anything in the Fast and Furious franchise. (Although there are "Documentaries" and true crime shows on Netflix that fit the same bill, but in all honesty, they don't count. They're shit as well as dumb. FnF is just dumb but enjoyable.) Cardinal Chang (talk) 21:09, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Contrarianism is very real as a mind set, point of view, mode of thinking, or what have you. Where do these strange ideas come from? Someone influential like a Trump has to set the table with an altered reality. Then, if the leader is accepted, contrarians sit down for dinner. They know it is all bullshit, they just don't care. They don't have to care. Who can make them care? Maybe it's like a finger puzzle. You just ignore it.Zatoichi (talk) 23:32, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Honestly not to get too dramatic, but the January 6 thing is absolutely burned into my memory. For reasons I don’t really wanna get into, it was probably the single worst day of my life, and I just remember everything. And when people try to deny the reality of that day, to just blatantly lie about something we all literally fucking saw happen in real time... it genuinely sickens me. Like genuinely the most fucking despicable, brazenly dishonest, actively malicious rewriting of reality I’ve ever experienced. 11:02, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait, how old are you? How could you not remember Septe- oh, that was 20 years ago wasn't it?  Kids these days, they have it so easy...  13:02, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I was roughly 1 year old when 9/11 happened. To me 9/11 and the War on Terror have always just kinda been background facts of life lmao. I’m not sayin Jan 6 was scarier or worse than 9/11, but I mean. I had unforfunately developed the ability to form memories by Jan 6 lmao. Also, I guess I should add that the reason it was so scary, is that one of the ppl I care about the most? Lives in america and is the kind of person these fucks would’ve very much liked to purge. Not only that, but I was out of contact with them for almost the entire day. So I basically spent the whole day in a panic, with no idea about whether one my closest ppl was safe or not, and just being completely powerless to do anything about it. In contrast, I spent 9/11 getting bathed in one of those little Baby Bath Tubs. So yeah lmao 02:07, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the user flood.
So, as some of you may know, RationalWiki has to deal with a user flood on a daily basis. Because of this, I have decided to give a suggestion to RW admins, that being that account creation limitations be implemented in order to combat the flood. Do you agree with my Point Of View? TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 06:09, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No, because someone who legit wants to create an account won't be able to. 18:07, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No, such a measure would be overkill. These are not massive floods of bad faith users but a few trolls and a small pool of spambots. 18:18, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Twas ever thus. Since time immoral there have been strange accounts created. It's easy enuff to deal with. Scream!! (talk) 18:24, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * We should at least put in a measure to prevent people from creating more than three or so accounts per IP within 24 hours, to limit spam from Tor users. I'm pretty sure Bulbapedia has something similar to this. Plutocow (talk) 18:33, 16 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Exactly. This is what I meant by 'Account Creation Limitations'. TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 21:17, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has a limit of 6, which means one person can create up to 6 accounts per day; it really helped curb one guy who for years mass-created accounts to screw around. The Blade of the Northern Lights (<font face="MS Mincho" color="black">話して下さい ) 23:20, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I thought, perhaps wrongly(?), that using Tor changed the IP rather frequently. Scream!! (talk) 23:56, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Tor users should be prevented from tor-turing RW? Anna Livia (talk) 16:56, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

As everyone is a sysop here, limiting account creation by IP is unnecessary. A block prevents account creation entirely. Christopher (talk) 16:59, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * As has been demonstrated numerous times by TAOB and co., autoblock does not work on Tor IPs. Plutocow (talk) 20:14, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * All we know is there’s a problem with autoblock, it’s not necessarily a tor issue. Tim fixing that problem is a lot more likely than him implementing any of these ideas, perhaps it’ll go away when we finally update mediawiki. Christopher (talk) 20:33, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I just installed Tor and proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that autoblock not working is a Tor issue. Plutocow (talk) 00:45, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Clearly the solution is to build an Ark. 00:52, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You can't edit via Tor; the IPs are almost always caught up in the spam blacklist. 71.215.89.215 (talk) 01:53, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah you can, I have even demonstrated as such. Plutocow (talk) 03:19, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * But what is the point in using Tor to edit RationalWiki? The only three real reasons I can think of to do that would be if you live in an oppressive nation, if you need to evade an abusive block by a certain idiot on this site (there's easier ways to do that, such as hitting the reset button on your modem), or if you're the Unabomber looking for a medium to post your manifesto (only to have it deleted from existence within minutes). 71.215.89.215 (talk) 19:23, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Autoblock doesn't work on Tor, so trolls can just keep creating accounts without having to switch their IP every time they get blocked. Plutocow (talk) 19:31, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The hell autoblock doesn't work on Tor (or at least Conservapedia's autoblock works on Tor). The difference is that they can't rangeblock Tor, which is a non-issue on RW since RW doesn't have checkuser. 71.215.89.215 (talk) 19:52, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I've demonstrated that autoblock doesn't work on Tor, and even without checkuser it's easy to tell if two banned users share an IP. IP blocks, on the other hand, do work on Tor, so I would like to try a rangeblock on them if I could get permission. Plutocow (talk) 20:04, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You're right, it is possible to edit from Tor now! Not that I have any reason to do so (assuming asshat Oxy doesn't start fucking with me). So what happened to the DNSBL filter that used to block it? I agree it should be blocked, not that blocking it really does anything for the wiki, but hey?. 2001:67C:289C:0:0:0:0:20 (talk) 20:29, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Help
How would you argue with someone who's saying arming the mujahideen was justified because 1. Not all of them were taliban and 2. The Soviets were worse. Evilatheistheathen (talk) 19:08, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The funding may have played a significant role in causing 9/11. (The relationship between and 9/11 is "complex" and certainly not direct, not to mention that the US was far from the only country funding the mujahideen. But when faced with a simplistic argument like that, I suppose a simplistic retort will suffice.) PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 19:24, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Because the Mujihadeen were actively fighting the Taliban? When the Cold War ended, the funding for the Mujihadeen stopped as well, but Pakistan and KSA still funded Osama so his group was able to take over.  Many Mujihadeen had to choose between fighting to the death, fleeing or surrendering, and if the Taliban had access to US supplies it was because the US stopped arming the Mujihadeen more than anything else.   19:26, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Were the Soviets worse? The Democratic Republic of Afghanistan was a secular and progressive government that tried to emancipate women, initiate land reform, and abolish the feudal hierarchy plaguing Afghan society. Take a look at what came after. — <font color="Purple">Oxyaena <font color="Red">Harass  20:02, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * the soviets were certainly worse than the regime they overthrew via a coup and then invasion. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:32, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That's the regime I'm talking about. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough. — <font color="Purple">Oxyaena <font color="Red">Harass  22:31, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I thought the thing that caused OBL to get pissed with the USA was stationing western troops in Saudi for Gulf War 1 - "heathens in the holy land of Mecca" and all that - which has no link to Afghanistan at all really.  OBL wasn't actually a major commander at that time - he built up in the 90's on the basis of the anti-US rhetoric. Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 22:54, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the Wikipedia article on is a good summary of the "possible connection to 9/11" arguments I've heard, along with other al-Qaeda attacks on the US. It's a contentious topic and even at best is an "9/11 was an unintended consequence" type of argument (certainly it's not direct). But it's not far out there, IMHO. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 23:30, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes the links between OBL and CIA/USA during he war are "well known" - but that's a REALLY long way from 9/11. It's not just an "unintended consequence", and so indirect as to be nonsensical IMO.Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 04:01, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Operation Cyclone was the epitome of “It seemed a good idea at the time” and was openly admitted by one of its earliest supporters as payback in kind to the USSR for Vietnam and yet another  in the endless line that were the “hot” parts of the Cold War. Brzezinski also kept arguing later on that Operation Cyclone was a good idea because he saw it as key to the fall of the USSR (again, debatable).


 * Also, it should be remembered that there was really no “Taliban” back then as that particular movement only really arose in the 1990s, after Operation Cyclone, the fall of the USSR and the end of the communist regime in Kabul. What is and was an issue at the time was the US willingness (and accompanying obliviousness) to:


 * A) Let Pakistan run things and build up what would eventually become the Taliban by funnelling support to the extreme Islamists that they wanted to use as a threat and leverage against India in the struggle over Kashmir.


 * B) Let rich Gulf states “export” their own Islamist critics to Afghanistan, as well as matching US funding as a way of deflecting domestic conflicts.


 * C) No long term planning for what might happen after the USSR had its own “Vietnam pullout” from Afghanistan, leaving a heavily armed, radicalised and conflict ridden chaos behind, including basically an Islamist equivalent of the and what that might bring about.


 * So, while there definitely were some clear arguments for arming the mujahideen, they kind of depend upon the time, context and general view you take of the conflict (from where and which point in time do you view it?). There is certainly no doubt that the Kabul communist regime was extremely brutal, as was the Soviet invasion and war in Afghanistan. Still, I find it ironic that the subsequent Western war in Afghanistan ended up emphasising such issues as girls attending school, which were one of the things that the Soviets and Kabul communists also boasted about. ScepticWombat (talk) 11:43, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

False defamation reports sent to Google, can anyone identify the RationalWiki page?
https://www.lumendatabase.org/notices/24488489

Anyone know whose RationalWiki page this is? Lumen won't reveal the article/URL. 69.160.242.100 (talk) 23:47, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I have no idea. I mostly work on fundie school articles. --USDA Certified Organic (talk) 00:44, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It's most likely Mikemikev's article since he wrote a complaint like this in the talk page and the notice was sent from Britain. 03:03, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I got something like this once, but it was for torrenting warez. 71.215.89.215 (talk) 02:11, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Apparently someone is asking for money to have the page removed - so someone knows. Also it contains twitter screenshots, and no "sourced links" - does that narrow it down? Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 03:53, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It's made up BS in desperation to remove the article from Google search. The only article I can think of with mention of child porn is Emil Kirkegaard. He doesn't live in UK and th notice was allegedly sent from Britain, however, since the whole report is lies - it's likely he or someone else pretending to be him lied about his location. The Mikemikev article doesn't have any mention of child porn on it. I also noticed the Kirkegaard article has vanished from Google for UK - but this could be a glitch.195.12.50.251 (talk) 09:06, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Roe is correct - these impersonations by filing bogus defamation and DMCA reports are by almost certainly Michael Coombs who has a history of filing fake reports under his own name. See also the discussion here. The same people he's targeting he's impersonated on other fake accounts. 103.108.94.9 (talk) 18:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey, BoN, are you Oliver Smith? GeeJayK (talk) 18:18, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Debating and countering Afrocentric/ black supremacist pseudo-historical claims
Hey Rationalwiki community could use some advice here on to go about debating Afrocentric and other ultra black nationalist claims in a casual setting. I encounter and sometimes reside with an Afrocentric person who likes to refer to every black supremacy claim under the sun. From Rastafarianism to the Native Americans were Black African claims to the Ancient Egyptian race controversy and everything in between. He or she will often refer to sources like this https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Origin_of_Races_and_Color.html?id=7nJkBGJGtYEC&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&gboemv=1 this and use the scientifically agreed upon Recent African Origin hypothesis as a bait and switch tactic to peddle their bullshit. SensaurC-137 (talk) 16:31, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Black supremacy is basically the same thing as White Supremacy but just switch one skin color for another. Arguments against Black Supremacy would be modeled after arguments based on white supremacy. --Tgal (talk) 19:38, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * If one is not also African American, that can be very difficult because one can easily be perceived as a non-credible source of information, or more harshly as a 'white devil'. People who are drawn to multiple pseudo-histories can be resistant to rational argumentation that points out contradictions among them. That may be the least risky route to take though because it does not require you to directly repudiate any single black supremacy claim that is made, rather draw the person to addressing the contradictions him/herself. Bongolian (talk) 19:48, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * A note worth adding regards the direct/indirect ties between black nationalists and white supremacy. Here are two examples: Holocaust denier George Lincoln Rockwell found common ground with the Nation of Islam, not to mention the influence had on despicable Mississippi segregationist  . UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 21:27, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yea Im well aware of the horseshoe effect black and white nationalists have on each other(I’ve seen it played out live with my own eyes). I find it really scary sometimes how well these seemingly polar opposite groups collaborate and cooperate with another when in public discord.
 * They're called hoteps, and far as I can tell as an outsider are not well-thought of. https://www.theroot.com/hotep-explained-1790854506 I don't know how to debate them (not a debater) but would perhaps reach out to the author of the attached article. Kntai (talk) 08:08, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Malcolm Gladwell
I think the wiki entry this site has for Malcolm Gladwell really needs to be updated to reflect his somewhat questionable past, one which he does vociferously deny. (But when you consider the claims against him, he is obviously going to deny them.) There are multiple sources see here as an example (courtesy of the shame project) which suggests Gladwell was a pro banking/tobacco lobbyist. I'm not sure where we should begin, but it does warrant inclusion, does it not? Cardinal Chang (talk) 11:37, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Recent meltdown thing about Mandela effect
Just wanted to apologise for the recent meltdown about the bullshit explanation of the Mandela effect, I guess I just spent too much time reading the comments of people who were certain that the universes travelled/merged which caused insignificant things to change for reasons that make little to no sense. As was pointed out by one of the users, our world is boring and people are stupid, with many of them abandoning Occam's razor to make the world seem more interesting.--WMS (talk) 12:22, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Allah is an entirely wholly merciful compassionate God. You are forgiven. Just do not do it again or you will roast in the fire for eternity! Shabi  DOO  13:11, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Coriolis effect and the Earth's oceans
Since the earth spins at around 1,000 mph, how come the water doesn't slough off? Wouldn't the earth's gravity be to weak to hold it down? 15:29, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The (necessary) centripetal acceleration is equal to the tangential velocity squared divided by the radius from the axis of rotation. The tangential velocity is about 460 meters per second, and the radius is about 6371km, or 6,371,000 meters.  The centripetal acceleration is then 460^2 m^2/s^2 / 6371000 m = 0.0332 meters per second squared.  The acceleration from gravity at Earth's surface is 9.81 meters per second squared, far more than enough to hold the water down. <font color="#00abcb">𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒   talk  15:59, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ...that's at the equator: centripetal force at the poles is zero. Excellent answer - never seen the maths written down before.Scream!! (talk) 19:16, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * If you can’t even feel the force of the Earth spinning, how do expect it to throw an ocean into space? Christopher (talk) 17:00, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * But it is enough to squish the Earth from a sphere into an "oblate spheroid". This is why "The Earth is a sphere" is used as a useful tool to explain that not all wrong answers are equally wrong.  17:16, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * More simply put, it's the difference between velocity and acceleration (change in velocity). The Earth travels at a nearly constant velocity (nearly zero acceleration). If the Earth accelerated, then there would be oceanic sloshing. Bongolian (talk) 17:45, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * We would be flung off the Earth along with the water. So you wouldn't have much time to think about it. You'd pass out very quickly and then your corpse would freeze and then be pelted by space dust and hit by solar radiation. It wouldn't be a very dignified end to your life (not that anyone would be around to mourn you). I'd say on a scale of horror from 0 to 10 it would be a 9. Shabi  DOO  19:01, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Just noticed the header: coriolis effect is nothing - NOTHING - to do with it. The coriolis effect is what makes hurricanes and such spin clockwise or anti-clockwise depending on the hemisphere (NvS). Scream!! (talk) 19:21, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Earth is losing hydrogen and consequently water through Methanogenesis.UncleKrampus (talk) 20:11, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Had to revert vandalism
Some right wing douche bag choose to vandalize the Saloon Bar with horribly spelt nonsense. --USDA Certified Organic (talk) 14:34, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't call attention 15:21, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't you think the mis-spelling must have been intentional? No-one's that stupid surely. Scream!! (talk) 17:25, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Flat Earthers exist so it is possible someone is that stupid. --USDA Certified Organic (talk) 17:35, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Point! Scream!! (talk) 18:41, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Harry Potter (talk) 22:00, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

helpme
I want the world to change. I want people of India to change. They support right wing religious extremist /facist gov who hijaked every gov body such as supreme court, media, news agencies , cbi, election commission etc. People's dissent are being supressed. Whoever speak against the ruling gov is labelled as anti national. This hurts me alot.

And my friends donot ever speak against the gov. All because of religion. All bec the ruling gov is targeting muslims in our country which are minority.

I dont want people hurting others due to religion. I had been constantly raising my voice against right wing facist gov but all I got is I lost my friends.

Many of my friends unfollowed me on social media.

My likes got reduced over the period of 4 years. Now I hardly get any like.

I feel very depressed. What I have done.

It hurts badly when your best friend unfriend you for constantly against the gov. I have deep anger for it. How can people be soo biased and think about themselves only. They dont care whether their is inflation. All they care is religious supremacy and hegemony. Ashton Cole (talk) 11:48, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The only thing I can say is never give up, never lose hope in humanity no matter how bad things seem, doomerism only helps the status quo which is what they want. VerminWiki (talk) 12:15, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Seems that Lithuania might recognize the Taiwan government with new de facto Taiwan office
https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Taiwan-Lithuania-grow-ties-despite-pressure-from-16325886.php

I will not say that Lithuania will truly recognize Taiwan but it is looking possible. I hope so (probably out of my complete dislike for the People's Republic of China). I don't believe that I am being petty over the issue as the PRC is happily engaging in genocide or at the very least, ethnic cleansing. I hope other countries will stand up to the PRC and tell it to piss off. Dictatorships won't last forever considering the fall of many communist and fascist nations in the past. --USDA Certified Organic (talk) 17:41, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Everyone expected the Cold War to last forever, and only ended because of Chernobyl. There's no guarantee that the same will happen to China.  Or perhaps it has happened; COVID has some parallels considering how hard China pushed to keep everything quiet until it was far too late, and it's only a matter of time now.  But, maybe not.  The lockdown hurt China in numerous ways, but it hurt other countries just as hard.  18:41, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll be honest, it's the first time I've heard that Chernobyl was the reason the cold war ended. Cardinal Chang (talk) 21:36, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Here's that claim made by Mikhail Gorbechev. 21:40, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Basically, the containment bankrupted the USSR and turned entire swaths of some of the most productive farmland in Europe into a wasteland. The disaster and exposed coverup ruined the legitimacy of the government to its citizens, which meant more support for those trying to leave the union or otherwise revolt.  21:44, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I've seen that claim a few times but I didn't realise it was taken not only at face value but seriously too. I was under the impression that the Soviets had already realised that the arms race in the Cold War was if not already it was going to bankrupt the state. The whole Reagan lunacy of the SDI project and it's funding was more a wake up call. Not to brush aside the events of Chernobyl. But, Gorbechev's changes to the economic system, positioning away from a State Capitalist Dictatorship towards transparency (Glasnost) and restructuring (Perestroika) more inline with other Western capitalist states was what truely ended the Soviet project, as for the Cold War, I suspect in the long run, it may have taken a break and is creeping back. Plenty of old school Soviets feel utterly betrayed by what happened following Glasnost, and the closure of the KGB. Cardinal Chang (talk) 22:07, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I blame GHWB and Clinton for missing a huge opportunity for outreach and so forth to prove to Russia itself that the US was never its enemy. There should've been a "Marshall Plan 2.0", give Russia a few billion/yr in foreign aid to stabilize their governments contingent on honest moves toward democracy, inspection and investment in infrastructure, expanding of industries, etc.  22:50, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The arms race was unnecessary, Republicans love to claim that Raegan's overspending on a bloated military killed the Russians but it was utterly irrelevant; when it comes to the nuclear equation, 100 nuclear bombs and 100,000 nuclear bombs are the same number. And that's if you don't factor in that more bombs means more chances of a colossal fuckup, as the US did accidentally drop a nuclear bomb on itself.  So the US could spend all the billions in the world, and Russia was in the same position as before.  22:40, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Was SDI about building more bombs?106.240.110.188 (talk) 08:58, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Strategic Defence Initiative Cardinal Chang (talk) 13:37, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but my point was asking if "[Reagan's] overspending on a bloated military" being useless because 100 bombs and 100,000 bombs are similar is a good description of SDI? It seems like SDI was less "build more bombs" and more "develop [or pretend to develop] an anti-bomb" 106.240.110.188 (talk) 06:41, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

The news story means that a "Taiwan Representative Office" will be opened in Lithuania and a place that will probably be called something like "Lithuanian Trade and Investment Office" will be opened in Taiwan. Since the WTO recognizes Taiwan as a separate area, China has to allow Taiwan to have trade offices in other countries (even in Hong Kong and Macau) and other countries to have trade offices in Taiwan. Those trade offices act as unofficial embassies in the absence of diplomatic ties. You can contact your country's trade office if you have any troubles in Taiwan. Sometimes they have names that refer to cultural exchange as well. The American one is called the American Institute. The British one is just called the British Office. I've renewed my passport through the British Office in Taipei.

The news story does not mean that Lithuania will be severing diplomatic ties with China and recognizing Taiwan instead. Although, if I remember rightly, Lithuania was the one country in the world that tried to have full diplomatic ties with China and Taiwan but China wouldn't allow it. Spud (talk) 00:37, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Do you know any devoted Christians that you appreciate?
I'm not talking about like family, but like Christians that actually love thy neighbor instead of justifying their bigotry as "Biblical". An example I can think of on the top of my head is Sufjan Stevens. I recently listened to "Illinois" for the first time and that album was one of the most beautiful things I've ever heard. It has a lot of biblical themes to it, but it's not polarizing to anyone else because of how relatable it is to a lot of us. "Casimir Pulaski Day" had me in tears because it reminded me of my papa that died of lung cancer in the winter 10 years ago. 07:37, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Mr Rogers? 07:51, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure. Why not? One of my best friends is a Christian and she is a really lovely person. A better person than me for sure. On the other hand she has some pretty "out there" Christian beliefs including that Christ was not the son of God. But she self-identifies as a Christian and I'm not going to tell her she can't be.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 13:50, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Andrew Klavan. 15:30, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Jimmy Carter. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 18:16, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Desmond Tutu. UncleKrampus (talk) 20:00, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Vince Lombardi. He was very adamant about integration and gay rights because of his Catholic faith. The Blade of the Northern Lights (<font face="MS Mincho" color="black">話して下さい ) 23:15, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah I could find some devoted Christians I appreciate, I could also find conservatives and cops I appreciate. This question is pointless, because anything good I could say about those people would be in spite of those traits not because of them. VerminWiki (talk) 08:54, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't think I know any actual Christians. Lots of Buddhists thoughAMassiveGay (talk) 19:54, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Gauss, Newton, Gödel—the Trinity. Leucippus Jodie Foster made me do it! 20:10, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * others: Heisenberg, Pauli, and Alonzo Church (who first proved the decision problem). For a more contemporary choice I’d pick Cormac McCarthy: I don’t know if he’s actually Christian (he was raised Catholic), but he uses the bible as a rich source of metaphor and to inform his gripping, powerful prose Leucippus Jodie Foster made me do it! 20:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Gregori Mendel anyone? Being religious is not in itself an inherently bad thing.  Remember, Fundamentalists don't worship God, they worship themselves.  Equally important to remember, arbitrary and confusing rules don't exist to make you better, but to keep you too busy to question anything.  20:21, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I thought the question was more about who you personally know rather than listing every Christian you can think off. That could take awhileAMassiveGay (talk) 21:11, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Best alternate history video game- Wolfenstein.
It is a very gorey bloody good time bringing down Nazi scum.

Okay, it is the only alternate history video game that I know of. --USDA Certified Organic (talk) 00:24, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I thought the soundtracks and gunplay in the Machine Games Wolfenstein games were excellent. The Fallout series is set in the future, but based on an alternative history in which Atomic Age technology become much more widespread and the Silicon Age didn't happen.  Some of the games in that series are pretty good. 165.225.114.194 (talk) 05:08, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * To me, Wolfenstein was always Wolfenstein 3D, which basically invented the FPS, and then the company decided to cannibalize their own code from W3D to create DOOM, solidifying themselves as the gods of FPS... until Half-Life of course. Sure, Ultima UW technically did more and sooner, and was simply put a much "smarter" game, but W3D was the simpler "ok, here's a gun, who cares about story, just shoot some Nazis!" 05:16, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Kirov reporting 106.240.110.188 (talk) 06:48, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't Bio-Shock also be considered "alternate" history too? Assassins Creed? Chaos Engine? Shadow Hearts? Metal Gear Solid? I'd say you probably know far more alternate history games than you think. Cardinal Chang (talk) 18:11, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't forget Deus Ex.
 * Command and Conquer: Red Alert takes place in a timeline where Einstein uses time travel to assassinate Hitler, which results in Stalin becoming an unstoppable power. This paves the way for Yuri to become the main villain of the Tiberium Wars, or something.  I think they gave up on C&C:RA being a prequel to C&C with the first expansion pack.  Oh man, I do miss me fighting giant radioactive ants...
 * In more recent years, there's Frostpunk, which takes place in Victorian England during an ice age, though I haven't played that. Looks cool, just for the fan rap-song.  Heave lads!  Ho lads!  Are our hearts cold or just cold-hearted?  So pray to your lord or your foreman, that the sun might rise in the morning!  They told us Hell was warm, but our empire fell for shelter from the storm.  18:24, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

What was the world like pre-9/11?
So I’ve basically grown up with 9/11 and the war on terror and Iraq etc, as just the natural background state of how the world is. I literally can’t picture a world where the twin towers existed and we weren’t all constantly at war in the Middle East. For any of the Older Individuals here: what was world that actually, you know, like? Is it true you could literally just get on planes easy? Was there a distinct shift in how people viewed the US as a result? This is all v difficult for me to picture lmao. 02:12, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Mostly the same, just with different excuses for the bullshit. 02:14, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't remember things being all that different before 9/11 (other than restaurants having smoking and non-smoking sections, which has nothing to do with the attack), but then again I was a little kid when that happened, and the first time I ever got on an airplane was in the 2010s. 71.215.89.215 (talk) 02:19, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I was in first grade. Big smoking building. Life before first grade for me was probably better as I hated school. I'm the wrong person to ask, though. ^^' 02:24, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * So I was old enough to remember the cold war. Big scares, bullshit regarding nukes at any time, but was too young to understand much.  The 90s though, best time to be alive honestly.  There were problems, sure, but the US economy was raging forward with the debt actually being paid down, this newfangled internet was going to allow the little guy to start their own business and take power away from The Man, Israel and Arafat were able to sit down to talk and there'd be peace there, world peace seemed inevitable, the music was good, Islamophobia really wasn't a thing in the US, the EU was viewed mostly as a joke but a friendly one, etc.
 * But, well, we can't have nice things. I'd say the only really good thing to happen since the 90's was the advent of gay rights.  Grew up thinking gays were a bit weird, but who cared.  Friend's dad once said he didn't care that people were gay, but it freaked him out finding out just how many there were.  Like, instead of 1 in 1000, it's like 1 in 30.  I sort of understand how he feels now, considering that somehow that 1 in 30 has become 1 in 3 in the Zoomer gen.  Like, just, what's going on here?  Entire percentages are now trans?  What.  03:07, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Internet was slow. It would take literally hours to download a couple of songs on Napster. I remember leaving my computer on all night to download The End of Evangelion and about three or four days to download Love Hina at that time. Since they were subbed in English and I was like, 8, I couldn't understand anything, so it was a waste of time. GeeJayK (talk) 03:23, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Also you originally had to pay by the hour for the internet.
 * And there were those AOL floppy disks, to be replaced by CDs. They only existed because the law hadn't kept up with technology.  So you see, AOL had declared every single CD to be an asset rather than an advertising expense, to pretend that they were worth more than they were...  03:28, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I abandoned a small empty suitcase at London's Victoria coach station in September 1999 and I'm not aware of it causing a bomb scare. I left it open to show there was nothing inside it. Spud (talk) 04:35, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * i disagree that you could leave suitcase anywhere without causing a bomb scare. you left it open is why it did not suffer the fate of a controlled explosion. AMassiveGay (talk) 05:48, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

unattended packages were possible IRA bombs rather than from islamic terrorists AMassiveGay (talk) 05:28, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * its because of the IRA that train stations do not have bins AMassiveGay (talk) 05:29, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It was like one element of 1984, where the "enemy" suddenly switched but appeared like it had always been the enemy. Before 9/11 in the US, the commies were the mortal enemies in propaganda, afterwards it was the Muslims. Before before 9/11, security was much laxer for air travel. I have actually walked on to commercial planes with no security checks whatsoever, as well as onto commercial planes where machetes were allowed on carry-on. The security state definitely accelerated after 9/11 with video cameras just about everywhere in public spaces. It used to be that one could easily get away with minor infractions that didn't hurt anyone like trespass with no damage involved. Bongolian (talk) 06:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I also told the woman who checked my ticket before I got on the coach (to Poland for my second teaching job) that I'd left an empty suitcase behind. i don't know if that made any difference. She didn't seem to be the least bit interested. Maybe now she'd tell me that I couldn't do that. Spud (talk) 07:54, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Biggest thing I miss is people waiting at the terminal or being able to just wander the airport and people-watch without a boarding pass (there's a great scene at the beginning of Kevin Smith's Dogma that captures this experience). I also miss the complete absence of the TSA. Artificius (talk) 07:45, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

The world was obviously different in many ways 20 years ago. But I assume the question is about how 9/11 changed the world. The wars which followed are the most obvious thing, along with Guantanamo. Another would be increased suspicion of Muslims. Yet another increased airport security and finally it gave the US the benefit of the "Patriot Act". So nothing really positive that's for sure.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:06, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * An even more drastic change: 30 years ago the USSR was entering its last four weeks of stable existence -not that they knew it at the time. (I know the situation was more complex, and the actual unwinding took four months.) Anna Livia (talk) 09:29, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I was working, preparing to go backpacking and remember getting a message from a friend about some idiot flying into the World Trade Center just before hitting the cinema to watch Shrek, then coming out from the film to news filled with horror and confusion. While the Middle East had been in focus prior to 9/11, the emphasis certainly changed and suddenly not only the US but a number of European countries had “boots on the ground” which certainly wouldn’t have otherwise. There was some tightening of airport security overall (the “security theatre”), but flights to the US were extreme; however I was flying to the Far East and Australia from Europe for said backpacking just two months after 9/11 and while security was definitely tighter, it was not too bad.


 * At least where I live(d), the “Muslim panic” and accompanying fear mongering definitely long predated 9/11, though it got a new impetus and focus subsequently. It was also weird how quickly and generally it was accepted that Islamist terrorism should be regarded as a threat on a par with the massive conventional, chemical, biological and nuclear arsenals of the former Eastern Bloc, i.e. that Islamic terrorism posed an existential threat to “the Western World”.


 * 9/11 and the Iraq War also clearly affected views of the US, at least in my neck of the woods. While leftists had always been critical of various aspects of US policies and culture, there was an initial wave of support for the US and to a large extent the invasion of Afghanistan. However, this quickly turned with the advent of the Iraq War, which seen by large numbers as illegal and immoral, and the decision for the country I live in to join in it was controversial, to say the least. Things didn’t really improve for the US PR and image when Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and the extraordinary rendition scandals followed one upon the other. ScepticWombat (talk) 11:14, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm a Canadian, and I grew up relatively close to the US border. I was also fairly young when 9/11 happened - my 17th birthday was a few days later, and I remember having a hard time having a "happy birthday" that year. But what I mostly remember about pre-9/11 was that it was really easy to cross the border. You didn't need a passport - birth certificates showing whether you were Canadian or American were sufficient. We used to do back to school shopping on the US side when the exchange rate was good enough for that to be practical, and we used to take day trips across the border for sporting events, museums, etc.. My grandparents used to cross every week or so to buy cheap gas. Immediately after 9/11, you still didn't need a passport, but I think the writing was on the wall as far as a relatively open border was concerned. I just remember thinking to myself that restrictions at a land border crossing wouldn't do much to stop planes.

It also changed the way a lot of my friends thought about the US. Prior to 9/11, the Iraq War, and so on, I don't think many of us thought very much about the US at all - they were the big, noisy neighbour, but that was about it. Suddenly with the world changing the way it did after 9/11, we all had opinions about the US government and foreign policy, as if any of us actually had the smallest idea of what we were talking about. AcidTrial (talk) 13:58, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I was studying at a Canadian university at the time. A light disdain for Americans was fairly common amongst Canadians. I remember when Canada beat the US at the world hockey championship there was a party for several days (a joyous David vs. Goliath fuck you). We were only an hour from the border and despite suggesting we "go have an adventure trip" in the US, nobody was interested. After 9/11, there was certainly sympathy for what happened and empathy towards Americans but if anything I found unease about America increased. Canadians already had a dim view of American politics with the populous choosing Bush over Gore and the electoral circus in Florida, but opposition to the Iraq war was very high in Canada. It seemed like a no brainer that it was about a Bush historical agenda and possibly American politicians searching for oil adventures and personal enrichment over any remote military threat and distress over how it would destabilise the Middle East and possibly have a run on with Canada. How on Earth it is possible that American politicians could own shares in a company that highly profited from war and post war contracts is beyond my comprehension (and 20 years later it seems no US laws have been enacted to prevent this). Fortunately, Canada has seen very little Islamic terrorism since America's adventures in Iraq and the knock on effect it had in the region. It is us in Europe who have enjoyed the monthly Jihadists attacks since (thanks America and the UK for that). Meanwhile it seems the US has done a completely inadequate job in dealing with Islamic extremism (on all fronts including addressing the issues from which extremism arises but also disrupting actual extremist cells) nor dealing with islamophobia.   Shabi  DOO  15:12, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Last I checked, Europe had been dealing with terrorism for, ever, as far as I'm aware. There's much less now than there was in the 70s, though that was in part due to the IRA.  I don't have much evidence but I'm sure the IRA was funded and directed by the Soviets far more than official accounts, because the USSR would be foolish not to exploit the situation to weaken a major NATO member, and only ended because the Cold War did as well.
 * As for Islamist terrorism, it's all but impossible to tell what effect the Iraq War had on Terrorism worldwide. 16:06, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the real reason that Europe has higher rates of Islamist terrorism than Canada is because unlike Canada, Europe is kind of a dick to their Muslim populations. In the UK, "Pakis" are treated like Black people are in the US.  France does its very best to pretend that all French are equal, yet 70% of their prisons are Muslim.  Germany is a little better with their Turks, but then again, there were always issues.  What it comes down to is that Europe decided they would import working-class folks from the former Imperial possessions, but things like "education" and "rights" weren't things to worry about because the Gastarbeitern would be booted out of the country and replaced with new ones.  But it turned out the workers wanted to stay, even as second class citizens, because their home countries were just that awful.  Then they had children who only knew Europe, and wondered why they were growing up poor.
 * Of course, Muslims are hardly the only people with grievances, so the question does need to be asked why a higher fraction of Muslims turn to terrorism than, say, Jains and Ba'hai, or the Romani and Sami. 16:22, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It's probably a proportional thing in regards to the former two, there's more Muslims in Europe than there are Jains and Ba'hai. — <font color="Purple">Oxyaena <font color="Red">Harass  17:02, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * LMAO as though islamophobia isn't a serious problem in North America. Muslims are treated with disdain throughout the Western world. Jihaddism now happens in small European countries with miniscule Muslim populations. And countries that almost never saw terrorism before now have annual Jihaddist attacks. Jihaddism events were infrequent ubefore 9/11 and jumped up quickly after America endangered the world with its invasion in Iraq. I do not understand how anyone can conclude that the destabilising events of the Iraqi war did not significantly contribute to murderous Jihaddism in Europe.  Shabi  DOO  17:04, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oxy, it's relative to their populations. Europe is like 90% Christian but they commit much less than 90% of the terrorist acts these days.
 * Shabi, it's complicated and the Iraq War certainly didn't help, but it's hardly the only thing going on. A lot of the terrorism is being funded by Iran, and I would agree that this was indirectly because of the Iraq War.  Just one look at a map before Iraq shows Iran with the US and allies on 1/2 of their borders, and with Iraq that jumps up to 3/4ths.  So of course they would freak out and fund anything at all that would destabilize the West to force them out of the region.  18:44, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not very sure about this. Maybe Europeans don't commit these crimes because they have institutions that prevent terrorists incidents from happening. I honestly think that one of the main reasons why the KKK became so weak nowadays was because these institutions prevent them from gaining power, not only a change of heart of the American population (although that's also important). And when these institutions fail, well... GeeJayK (talk) 18:51, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * At least in France, I am wondering if some of it might have to do with echoes of the colonial past. The French-Algerian war isn't *that* ancient (ended in 1964). My understanding is that a lot of the French Muslim community comes from ex-French colonies.
 * A unique thing about Canada is that, at least of lately, it's possible to argue that incels are a greater terrorism threat in Canada than Islam extremists. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 18:56, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * But "incel" and "Muslim" aren't mutually exclusive. Remember, before he went to Afghanistan and stole a camel, Osama bin Ladin was known as Hassan bin Laid.  18:59, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah... Our most famous here was perpetrated by a Muslim incel. GeeJayK (talk) 19:04, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I've mentioned it before and have had quite a few arguments about it, but I'm convinced the majority of Islamist terrorists are suffering from some form of sexual frustration, whether that's because they simply can't find a girlfriend/wife, they are gay and believe themselves to be monsters in need of redemption, or are rape victims who view themselves as permanently tainted and want to purify their souls somehow.
 * It's not the only broad category of reasons, of course, but my conjecture is that one of the reasons for Islamist terrorism being more frequent than others is because men are at a disturbingly high risk of being raped in many Islamic societies such as Iraq and Afghanistan. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED, NO, SERIOUSLY Another reason being polygyny, which appears to increase the relative rate of violence in society.  19:18, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Trying to reduce the cause of anything to a single factor (ie reductionism) is always shoddy scholarship at best, Cory. — <font color="Purple">Oxyaena <font color="Red">Harass  19:37, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

The reason the original KKK vanished was because most of their goals had been accomplished. There was simply no need for a KKK to exist anymore, they had reversed most of the effects of Reconstruction to begin with. — <font color="Purple">Oxyaena <font color="Red">Harass  19:35, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Also to pretend that Europeans don't commit terrorism is bollocks and Islamophobic. Need I bring up the vast plethora of hate crimes committed against Muslims in both Europe and America since 9/11? Hell, Anders Behring Breivik is just one example of a white, European terrorist committing terrorism against Muslim populations. — <font color="Purple">Oxyaena <font color="Red">Harass  19:39, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hell, to take Northern Ireland as an example (which is in Europe), most of the terrorism committed there to this day is by mostly various Republican and Ulster Unionist groups (who are, again, white European Christians and not, say, Muslims). Y'all seriously need to critically examine your own assumptions about a lot of subjects. — <font color="Purple">Oxyaena <font color="Red">Harass  19:44, 21 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Why are you always looking for a fight, and accusing everybody and their uncle of being a sockpuppet of someone anyway? A simple bar discussion about what things were like before 9/11, and you're trying to start an argument about it. Simple attempts to improve a mainspace article by removing stupidity from it and you're tossing around sockpuppet allegations and accusing an anonymous user of someone who used to harass you. Can you see why people don't like you? Honestly, this site was better when you were gone and I wish you hadn't come back. 71.215.89.215 (talk) 19:43, 21 July 2021 (UTC)


 * 1) I specifically said it wasn't the only reason.
 * 2) If 90% of the people are committing 50% of the violence, that doesn't mean they are as equally culpable as the 10% that are committing 50% of the violence.
 * 3) The first Klan ended in 1871. Reconstruction ended in 1877.  19:49, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Most of their goals had already been accomplished by the time Reconstruction officially ended. And you're saying that Muslims as a whole in Europe are responsible for 50% of the violence? You're saying all European Muslims are responsible for a significant chunk of the violence in Europe. How is that not Islamophobic? — <font color="Purple">Oxyaena <font color="Red">Harass  19:52, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I thought it was clear Iwas talking about the Third Klan when I said it "became so weak nowadays". Also, as far as I know, despite his Islamophobia, Breivik's target were members of the Norwegian Labour Party. Not only Muslims. I think what Cory is trying to say is that Muslim terrorist attacks are, on average, more common today than Christian attacks, not that the later is not also a problem. GeeJayK (talk) 19:58, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This varies by location; I would argue that in America, the threat from domestic right-wing terrorism is actually greater than Islamic terrorism at the moment. I would say "sexual frustration" has nothing to do with most terrorism (bar the incels), it's usually a mixture of politics and/or tribalism (which of course is related to each other). Often a touch of doomsday cultlike fanaticism as well... in fact, on occasion (like when religious cults commit terrorism ala Aum Shinrikyo) it might be the *primary* reason. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 20:44, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, White Nationalists currently cause more total damage in the US than Islamists, but White people also make up something like 75-80% of the population. Muslims are 1% of the US population.  20:46, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure. Of course, this perhaps can be partially explained by the high-percentage of not-always-very-friendly military adventures the United States has engaged in the Middle East. I can't think of an Islamic terrorism incident over here involving a Punjab, Malay, Turkish, or Indonesian... the wacky world of oil sheik politics or Israel politics does not pertain as much there. (There was one Chechan Muslim attack in the 2010s, that was a bit different.) The other partial explanation, of course, is that Islam unfortunately has some very strong fundamentalist sects, the type that produces that sort of doomsday cult fanaticism that mixes well with terrorist activity. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 21:01, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * All three Abrahamic religions inspire endless violence and fanaticism. Only 25 years ago the Balkans were ravaged by Christian and Muslim conflict and Belfast is still recovering from sectarian divide. Lebanon was also destroyed by Christian and Islamic conflict. And before Christian Europe secularised Christianity went pretty fucking nuts with extremism. Muslim countries which have secularised see very little extremism (think Albania, Azerbaijan and to a much lesser extent Turkey). It is not Islam in particular, it is the monotheist Abrahamic faiths that inspire absolutely fucking deranged violence and extremism when not kept in check by secularism. Shabi  DOO  21:20, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Oxy you often tend to argue about things that nobody is arguing about. I don't see anywhere, where anyone claimed that Muslims are responsible for all terrorism in Europe and that Europeans do not commit terrorism. Having said that, in Western Europe in the 21st century if a bomb goes off you can confidently bet money it was a Jihaddist attack. CorruptUser, I also never said that the Iraq war was the only cause of Jihaddism in 21st century Europe. There used to be PLO bombings and hijackings in the 20th century. Having said that, despite Europe's colonialist past and large muslim populations in some countries and large cities, Jihaddist attacks were pretty uncommon before the year 2000. They started happening with alarming frequency once America's oil adventure started in Iraq and became a fact of life once that spilt over into Syria and the emergence of ISIS. This is but one of the many fallouts of America's ghastly second invasion of Iraq (I believe the daily nightmares were much worse in Syria and Iraq). It has so destabilised the Middle East, which was already terribly destabilised, the ripple effects it cause go far beyond just more frequent Jihaddist attacks in Europe. Shabi DOO  21:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh great, here we go with the reddit atheist religion bashing. — <font color="Purple">Oxyaena <font color="Red">Harass  21:59, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You know, the more I think about it, the more I'm tending to agree with you about Iraq and European terrorism... 21:24, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * i am wondering if the uptick in jihaddist attacks is as much to do with the internet as it is any particular cause. would it be as bad it is if we were all still on dial up and took all night to download a 15 minute porn clip? how would radicalisation take place without internet? AMassiveGay (talk) 21:28, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * If the terrorists had Twitter, we'd have some bizarre photos from the cockpit. "Me about 2 crsh this plane!  Death to America!" #AlluhahAkbar #FreeBritney
 * Side note, ever watch The Expanse? The backstory is basically the Age of Imperialism, in space.  The first three seasons are about the Cold War, and space sure is fucking cold up there.  The next 3 seasons are about The War on Terror.  In space.  The next three books seem to be something about Chinese super-soldiers, I guess the writers are now making a hypothetical guess about what Earth will be post War on Terror?  But there's no plans to make seasons 7-9, yet, considering there's a time-skip of about 30 years and so all the actors would be replaced.  Plus one of the main cast members sexually assaulted dozens of women so they had to fire him, complicating any adaption... 21:38, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm really tired of people assuming the PLO are Jihadists when they're an explicitly secularist organization. I'm also really tired of people conflating Palestinian nationalism with Islamism as if the two are the same thing. They're not. Hell, not even all Palestinians are Muslims, a substantial amount of them are actually Christian and a fair few are also Jews. — <font color="Purple">Oxyaena <font color="Red">Harass  21:52, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oxy the PLO suicide bombs were a produce of Islamic radicalism. The largest faction of the PLO was Hamas, an organisation that completely supported Jihad. Christian population amongst Palistianians is small (like at most 2%) and ALL Jihadism is both political and religious. Your appologetics of Islamic extremism and terrorism is baffling Oxy. Shabi  DOO  21:59, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * As for the internet: Jihadist suicide bombs bombs and extremism were a common reality in Israel for a long time well before the internet existed and 9/11 happened well before social media existed and youtube was commonly used. Radicalism was also a major force behind the worst parts of the Lebanon war, again, well before the internet. Wahabbism was developing throughout the 20th century and extremism in Afghanistan was already a serious problem well before the 21st century. I agree that the tools of the internet certainly make radicalisation easier.  Shabi  DOO  21:59, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hamas was actually helped founded by Israel to counteract the secular PLO. No, this is not a conspiracy theory. See here. I'm not apologizing for Islamic extremism. Palestinian nationalism is a matter of national liberation. — <font color="Purple">Oxyaena <font color="Red">Harass  22:05, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes of course an organisation which supported Jihad and sent suicide bombers who called out Alahu Akbar before blowing themselves up was entirely political and had nothing to do with Islamic terrorism. Of course Oxy. Shabi  DOO  22:12, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hamas bad. 22:24, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Israel worse. — <font color="Purple">Oxyaena <font color="Red">Harass  22:51, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHAAHAHAHHAHAHAAA!!!!! You're so cute that you think there's good guys there. 22:53, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oxy, I am extremely sympathetic to the plight of Palestinians and I agree the continued occupation and dismal treatment of Palestinians is awful, worse with Israel slowly picking away at their land is absolutely fucking bonkers (how the state can claim to be a moral actor while doing that and claim to be a champion of democracy and human rights while they exclude people based on religion and blatantly discriminate based on religion is beyond my comprehension). None the less random murdering of civilians is reprehensible under any circumstance. There are countless occupied people around the world that do NOT engage in random murdering of non military targets and general terror. If it is bad when the US recklessly dropped bombs on civilians in many conflicts and when Axis powers randomly killed civilians just for the shit of it...it is bad regardless of the end. And it is bad for the same reason as doing so while living under unfair conditions. You should not qualify any form of terrorism and random murder of civilians with ANY argument like "oh yeah well they are mistread" or "the other people are also bad" or even "it's complicated". It's never complicated enough to murder random non-military targets. Or try to dismiss the religious element involved when it is CLEARLY there. Shabi  DOO  23:13, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hamas wouldn't exist if it weren't for Israel, so yeah, Israel's worse. Where the fuck did I say that I think there are any "good guys" in this situation? — <font color="Purple">Oxyaena  <font color="Red">Harass  23:25, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You're simping (is that how this word is used? I feel old) for Hamas. I piss on both Hamas and Likud (not Israel, a varied mass of people), with zero need to apologize for either. 23:29, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oxy as a pansexual defending Hamas, it's not like Islamist groups are throwing LGBT people off buildings. Yes, Likud is bad, but at least it's not kahanist. 06:24, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * They still perpetuate apartheid, so they're hardly any better. — <font color="Purple">Oxyaena <font color="Red">Harass  08:56, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * If my history serves me correctly, Israel was founded as an "iron lance" that the British Empire would use to shatter the Arab liberation movement in their colonies by dividing them as to whether the Jews should be expelled or whether the land was justly Jewish. It should no longer seem suprising that they still carry out the puropse it's master set for it, just now without it's master. An Advocate (talk) 03:22, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * If my history serves me correctly, Israel was founded as an "iron lance" that the British Empire would use to shatter the Arab liberation movement in their colonies by dividing them as to whether the Jews should be expelled or whether the land was justly Jewish. It should no longer seem suprising that they still carry out the puropse it's master set for it, just now without it's master. An Advocate (talk) 03:22, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I think one good and important change is how the so called "rape culture" waned. I remember that in the TV adaptation of Ace Ventura there was a forced kiss scene. Basically, a woman was sent to kill Ace, but he forceful kiss her. Later in the episode, she falls in love with Ace and saved him. That was in a cartoon, for children. has a very similar scene and it took literally decades for people to understand that the rape scenes on other classic movies like and  weren't ok.

We hardly ever see this blantant normalization of violence against women in mainstream, newer movies.

Also, do they still make cartoon adaptations from successful movies? I can remember of many others on the period: The Mask, The Mummy, Jumanji, Ghostbusters, and more adult stuff, like Robocop and James Bond, just to name a few adaptations we've got during the 80s and 90s. GeeJayK (talk) 12:03, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, Disney movies still get turned into tv shows, but it's not like the days when someone said "Hey, Beetlejuice is a popular live action movie, let's make it a kid's show!"
 * As for rape culture and whatnot, there was a time when the Pepe Le Pew cartoons were actually feminist. Pepe is a smelly French rapist, and it's clear Penelope doesn't want his advances.  That's the point, that it's wrong that he doesn't know to back off.  Also, fun tidbit, originally he's American and only pretending to be French, and has a wife and 2 kids.  His first assault victim was actually a man.  Yet, you never seem to hear complaints about Pepe being a negative depiction of bisexuality.  16:29, 22 July 2021 (UTC)