RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive344

Should Trans people be able to compete in sports?
What's the general feeling here on the question. Theres a bazillion threads on reddit about it at the moment.&mdash; Unsigned, by: McUrist / talk / contribs
 * ?? Of course they should. 171.33.193.245 (talk) 09:16, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * As a trans person, let me tell you all that sports and transgender athletes talk is rubbish, it's a manufactroversy, nothing more, nothing less, and it implicitly devalues athletes based on sex and gender, saying that one gender/sex is inferior to the other supposed gender/sex. — Oxyaena Harass  10:45, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, I wouldn't phrase it in a divisive way, but it doesn't feel fair to let people (of whatever gender) who have grown up with vastly more testosterone fight in the ring against people who haven't. 171.33.193.245 (talk) 11:00, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I was looking up the testosterone thing recently. It's actually not at all as clear-cut as popular culture might have us believe.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 11:44, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Interesting. If it isn't as clear-cut there is probably some nuance the public is missing, and there should be an effort to communicate this nuance within the school system or through other avenues. Would you say it should still be a factor worth considering in dividing sports or it shouldn't factor into sports divisions at all? 171.33.193.245 (talk) 12:48, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If you are asking me - I honestly don't know enough about it. I had some sort of views which made me start reading up on testosterone and left me thinking that I needed to know more.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 13:12, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, same for me I guess. 171.33.193.245 (talk) 13:16, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * There has been a divide with athleticism generally for a pretty good reason -- biological males have certain advantages in certain physical activities (upper body strength and speed in general), while biological females having an advantage in some flexibility and balance. Most sports focus on the former, and consequently I can only think of one sport which has women successfully competing with men at the highest level on similar terms with some success -- auto racing, particularly drag racing, which has (triple Top Fuel championship winner, no gender separation required) and several others that currently or in the past have done very well at the top levels (many of  for instance). There's probably a few others (horse racing comes to mind) but it's fairly rare (and even in these sports there is plenty of bias still around, unfortunately). Other sports divide between the sex differences to the point that it would be tough to compare (take women's gymnastics vs. men's gymnastics -- men don't compete on the balance-oriented balance beam, while women don't compete on the upper body strength oriented still rings)
 * For mental oriented games and sports, the differences between the sexes are *much* less stark there. It is my opinion that gender differences in e-sports for instance would largely be more culture-oriented -- we know how toxic gamer culture is now, so I'm not surprised e-sports is male dominated at the moment. But it probably has less reason to be.
 * For trans competition I do agree with Bob that "it's complicated" and it's something elite sports governing bodies are wrestling with right now. However, for many sports, an elite level is where there is the most worry. For lower levels, many amateur sports have enough cross-over athletic range between the sexes that IMHO it's not a big deal which sex one wants to compete as. For instance, with distance running at an event where casual runners mix with hardcore runners, it is extremely likely the top man will beat the top woman, but it's also equally likely the top woman will beat a very large portion of the men in the field. Soundwave106 (talk) 14:11, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * US national cross country competition last December: in the age 15-18 group, running the same distance over the same course, the top female finisher would have been 80th (out of 175 male runners). Second place female would have finished 86th. Third place would have been 120th. So, no, nearly half of the male runners would have beaten first and second place on the women's side, and 68% of them beat the third place finisher. So, yeah...
 * As long as a person is healthy enough to participate and is able to meet up with the physical standards given- I do not see an issue. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 12:51, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem is how a recently transitioned athlete can easily sweep up a bunch of prizes in a way the seems unfair. As not above it's not a problem at the amateur level, but when there's money on the line I can empathise with the woman who say it's unfair. McUrist (talk) 16:26, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Studies say... Nope! 16:39, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Source? It's poorly studied, but there's plenty to say that current testosterone isn't the only advantage men have. Could you take a statistical view and say that given the ratio of female athletes to trans female atheletes, if there was no advantage, trans wouldn't hold any records? 80.5.215.67 (talk) 17:44, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Reddit politics should not be taken seriously. 14:07, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It does make me feel like the internet is full of 12 year olds.McUrist (talk) 16:16, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait, transgender people shouldn't compete in sports? Who in the freaking world would sugge... Oh wait.--Alola, my name is Delibirda! (talk) 15:51, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The wording was definitely wrong there, but it's mainly a concern about MtF competing in female events. I'm far from a terf, but I think its riddled with problems. We divide sports by age, gender and disability for reasons of participation and fairness.McUrist (talk) 16:16, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

The real question
Should transphobes be allowed to to compete in sports? After all, they throw a fit when they lose to Trans people. And thus logically they are unable to compete in a fair and honorable manner. 13:56, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Aw hell yeah. Anyone can compete in sports, even if it's a conservative wingnut. It will be funny to see how this ends. — Jeh2ow Damn son!  14:14, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually it does depend on the sport. In some of them trans women have an advantage over non trans women due to the benefits of male biology in that area. It’s an actual concern that people don’t want to talk about because no one wants tot be labeled a bigot but if we do that then we can’t come up with a solution.Machina (talk) 15:23, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Or, we could just take out all of the testosterone in the MTF to make sure there's zero advantage, ya freakin' bigot. — Jeh2ow Damn son!  15:27, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Not sure if serious. Who is 'we'. Every MTF should be able to decide for themselves what's in their bodies or not, and then compete with that body in whatever sport they wish. And male biology is not limited to "current testosterone levels". 171.33.193.245 (talk) 17:10, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * But that would depend on honesty, a rare resource to be sure. How would you address unalterable advantages like say: height in basketball? A trans friend of mine is 6'3ish, which would put them well in the top 0.1% of women.McUrist (talk) 18:10, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. Absolutely.--Alola, my name is Delibirda! (talk) 15:51, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm noticing a lot of people talking about "male biology"... You know, sort of implying via sloppy logic and rhetoric that Trans women are really males... 17:13, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * In case this needs to be cleared up: They're not males. Period. 171.33.193.245 (talk) 17:18, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. — Jeh2ow Damn son!  17:29, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed, Not implying that Trans aren't somehow a thing or shouldn't be able identify however they want, but I suspect they're implying things like height, bone structure, muscle fibre, male pattern hair loss etc. Seems like a straw-man to dismiss it as "transphobia"80.5.215.67 (talk) 17:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Except it is transphobia. 17:35, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * When I refer to "male biology", I refer to people born with a penis vs. people born with a vagina, as well as secondary sexual characteristics generally associated with one or another. A transgender female is a female by identity (and thus that's the term you should use), but will often have biological male secondary sexual characteristics without surgery or hormone therapy (though those with gender dysphoria, as I understand it, from current research seem to have some characteristics of their biological opposite, particularly in brain structure). One must separate (although they are linked a bit) the distinction between biology and identity here. At present I'm not aware of a term that can get around the term "male" on the biological end.
 * On this issue, also are affected. So it's not just "transphobia" alone. However, I'll repeat, the concern is largely at the elite / top level. It's much less of a deal for casual sports. Soundwave106 (talk) 19:26, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Even at the casual level there are noticeable differences between biological males and females.
 * "Less expected was the gender related distribution of hand-grip strength: 90% of females produced less force than 95% of males. Though female athletes were significantly stronger (444 N) than their untrained female counterparts, this value corresponded to only the 25th percentile of the male subjects." Hand-grip strength of young men, women and highly trained female athletes. Graph My personal answer is, however, I don't know. My feeling is that this should be up to the athletes in the sports themselves, and that we should defer to them. Neo Stalinist (talk) 05:18, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * (I'll add that the "current consensus" in a lot of sports organizations seems to be to mandate MtF individuals to be on hormone therapy for n years before allowing to compete. Which does seem a fair approach. I'm sure we'll see some wiggling and adjustment in years to come.) Soundwave106 (talk) 19:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It's a nonissue, the scientists themselves say that it's a nonissue.... and that it's transphobia. — Oxyaena Harass  17:51, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * But its a fascinating non issue. I don't even watch sports.McUrist (talk) 18:12, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure wish there was a RW article that could summarize this in an educational way. 171.33.193.245 (talk) 17:54, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * There's this but it doesn't seem very helpful in forming an opinion on this. 171.33.193.245 (talk) 18:03, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

The IAAF's qualifying standard for the men's 100m (10.05) is quicker than the women's world record (10.49). Same with the 200m (20.24 vs. 21.34) and 400m (44.90 vs. 47.60). I've no idea what the ultimate fair-to-everybody answer will be, but pretending this is a non-issue for elite-level competition is ridiculous. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 18:47, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Sounds to me like it might be a medical issue, which means that it has to be decided case by case. One size fits all does not work here. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 18:51, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It's sexist and transphobic is what it is. — Oxyaena Harass  21:27, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I hate to break it to you, but reality doesn't give a fuck about your ideological positions, no matter how deeply held. Hormone therapy can only do so much to alter the physical differences conferred by birth sex. Given similar levels of innate athletic prowess, training and competitive experience, trans men will struggle to qualify for most elite men's athletic events, whilst trans women will line up with a significant advantage over the rest of the elite women's field.


 * It's entirely possible to acknowledge this reality without casting any aspersions on their status as men or women, or on their rights to live their lives as such. This is an obvious special case that defies easy answers. Why are you so invested in maintaining otherwise? Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 22:56, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I find it odd that you state these things. The Olympics have hosted Trans athletes for awhile. And oddly, there's no push among sport companies to mass recruit Trans women athletes. Also sports isn't about "fairness", it's about multi million dollar ad campaigns to sell you the products of child labor and corporate tax evasion competition. 23:09, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The IOC is rather less sanguine, but by all means continue to pretend there's nothing to see here. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 23:55, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm tired of this discussion, every professional sport has some sort of genetic limit to the topmost tier of performance. The smaller the scale, the fewer the competitors, the more likely a gender divide makes a difference.  I would not be able to play in the NFL or fight Ronda Rousey, and hey, lucky me, that's not the problem.  I think women, trans or not COULD play in the NFL and COULD fight against Rousey (I don't want to leave that women could fight against Rousey joke unnoted because it was quick and I'm a Rousey fan).  Lucky me, that's not the problem either.  The problem is the gendered separation of sport.  I'm not even against drug use, it has a huge history in baseball, let Mark McGwire bulk up with steroids to sock those dingers, let Dock Ellis throw a no hitter on meth and LSD, baseball is about standing around and hoping nothing happens, let these guys get geetered up, I don't care about them.  Let Lance Armstrong get a blood transfusion during a normal rest period, it's cool to me, I don't care who gets beat in a sport, it's sports baby, freaks outperforming freaks (not equivocating trans to freak, gender dysphoria is normal and old as time, I'm calling top tier athletes freaks because it's a lot easier to watch them do shit that nobody could just do if you consider them freaks.  I should replace the word 'freaks' with 'anomalies' if I'm trying to disambiguate trans from freak, but top tier athletes are fucking freaks in my book).  As it is currently gendered, I think it is also stupid and easier to conceptualize that we have a men's and womens' divide in things like poker leagues, bowling leagues, billiards leagues, golf associations, baseball teams.  NASCAR did it, and that's about as physically demanding as baseball.  I think the first step is to remove the gender division. But this would disenfranchise a lot of female athletes to the point of discouragement.  Still, I say do it, I'm not an athlete, I watch athletes because, I don't know, it's fun or some shit.  I'm not the type of guy to fall into the statistic that domestic abuse rises when hometown college football teams lose.  Let the athletes battle it out and hit each other, especially if it's on the ice.  The older I get, the more I'm watching children perform these freakish feats against each other.  I'm so tired of this discussion, the repercussions affect who and how?  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:48, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a remarkably egalitarian position, but it has consequences. If the sex segregation of sports is eliminated, biological females (since the term "woman" has become contentious) will be outright eliminated from most high-level competition. There are no biological females in the world who are competitive with biological male Olympians in sports involving running, jumping, or strength. The change would amount to eliminating many women's sports with no change in men's sports. I'm not particularly into sports, but I recognize that many people like that there are opportunities for biological females to pursue athletics. Title IX was implemented for a reason, after all. Let's leave aside athletic ability for a moment to consider chess. FIDE organizes several world chess championships. There is an unrestricted championship that happens to be dominated by adult biological males. Because it is beneficial to the popularity of chess as an activity and the enjoyment of its participants, there are also several restricted competitions for biological females, the old, and the young that ecourage those demographics to participate. If the purpose of this endeavor is competition to divide winners from losers, and to sort all people by skill, it's obviously counterproductive. But if the purpose is to promote participation and enjoyment of the activity, there is obviously a point to it. The complications related to transsexuals in sports implies that some refinement of heuristics is due, which means that people should be clear about what they want to achieve in how sports are organized. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 03:05, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Biology says you're an idiot. 04:40, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No human who has produced ova has ever run a four minute mile. You may not like the terminology, but there are certain patterns by which things operate in the physical world, and describing these with particular terms has utility in many contexts. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 04:51, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you know what competition is? 12:55, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Of course. Since you don’t seem satisfied here, it looks like it’s time to belabor the point. In context, competition is the act of striving to achieve some exclusive goal in opposition to others trying to do the same in some organized sport, or an event at which such activity takes place. This is typically not done as an end in itself, but for the enjoyment of the spectators and/or participants and the generation of revenue relating to the commercialization of goods and services relating to those groups. In the interests of serving these purposes, competitions are typically broken up into multiple divisions by various criteria rather than having a single event per type of competition, so that the competitors in a given event are evenly enough matched to make things interesting, and there’s more to watch. Since the natures of competitive sports vary, different competitions use different criteria for these divisions. Many use weight, nearly all use sex. This is because those differences can be significant to the competition in question, to the degree that it renders certain people out of the running due to that attribute regardless of other personal factors at play. So weight classes are arranged such that people within a class are reasonably competitive against each other with respect to concerns related to weight. Regarding sex, let’s consider the mile run I mentioned before. No human who has produced ova (since the term “biological female“ has become contentious) has ever run a four minute mile. However, there are enough humans who have produced sperm who can do so to completely shut out humans who have produced ova from high level competition if competitions were not divided along those lines or something functionally similar. Since this is widely considered to be an undesirable state of affairs, proxy measures functionally similar to gamete production are used in the mile run and many other sports to enable there to be high level competitions involving humans who have produced ova. Perhaps you don’t like that distinction or comparable proxies. That’s fine, but changing the policies by which competitions are organized will have consequences for how they play out. And people are capable of analyzing what these consequences would be and expressing opinions regarding how desirable they are. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 17:00, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * One point I'd like to add: the implication that biology doesn't matter gives the person making the claim a massive mental gymnastics challenge of explaining why women don't hold records in any of the track and field events that use the same equipment. Biology says they're an idiot. Two can play at just calling the other side idiots McUrist (talk) 09:14, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not happy with my own disambiguation here, because even if it applied, we've got people who will take it their own way. So I'm stuck trying to say, yes, I do care about athletes because I watch them, they benefit me in that they perform literally for me, as a viewer, and no, I don't care about gender fluidity because I believe it's a real thing.  All this rabble about how it's unfair and uncool, I just flat out disagree with.  We absolutely, first, have to define "sport."  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:11, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

A message from biology
Hi. It's me, biology. Stop putting words in my mouth and have the goddamn balls to admit that your opinions are your own. Biology (talk)
 * Hmph. I don't have balls at all. That's not fair. 21:02, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

It’s not an opinion, men consistently outperform women in similar sports hence the issue with trans athletes, mostly male to female. In some sports it doesn’t matter but in other HRT doesn’t level the playing field enough.Machina (talk) 04:46, 20 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Having a opinion is Absol-utely no excuse for bigotry.

And to dear, trans women are NOT men. And trans men are NOT women.--Alola, my name is Delibirda! (talk) 19:52, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I can pull the data that shows that HRT doesn’t entirely level the playing field for some sports.Machina (talk) 23:58, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't say, do. 01:50, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If you can pull the data, pull it. Now.--Alola, my name is Delibirda! (talk) 14:20, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Read it and weep: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SM8zbftYHzy8r2VrOpGtWxPxC2QrEvUvXmmBJixpKy8/editMachina (talk) 19:42, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You uh... really need to delete all the things that are not numbers and statistics from peer-reviewed studies from the list before making people sift through it. When people ask for data, they do not want to be presented with Youtube videos, news sites and random men's athlete rankings with no interpretation attached. 82.36.198.177 (talk) 20:31, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, it's your pal sociology. Y'all'd better figure out how to get people to care about things that actually matter, like the impending omnidisaster of climate change, instead of sportsball, or your little industrial civilization you've got going is fucked. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 09:22, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * What do you mean with "little industrial civilization"? And just because there are bigger problems than X does mean we can't pay attention to X. (Altough global warming is serious stuff.) If you want to introduce yourself, you can register and make a userpage. Maybe you should check out our page on first world problems and not as bad as.--Alola, my name is Delibirda! (talk) 14:16, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Translation project
I want to propose a translation project. Translating our articles and suff to norwegian. Who is with me?--Alola, my name is Delibirda! (talk) 15:42, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Alright, as long as you don't leave any pickled herring behind. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:54, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "pickled herring"?--Alola, my name is Delibirda! (talk) 17:57, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Is Bismarck a hewwing? Bongolian (talk) 20:42, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You asked this before. Judging by what you wrote on your talk page yesterday, I guess you've forgotten. Anyway the response last time was that nobody else here speaks enough Norwegian to be able to help much. If you don't want to do it on your own, fine. Just forget about it. But if you're happy doing it on your own, that's great.Spud (talk) 04:59, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I thought you had to propose translation projects in the saloon bar.-- Also, I think I can do it on my own, at least a couple of pages. Alola, my name is Delibirda! (talk) 07:01, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No. You can just dive right in and get started. You don't have to propose it in the Saloon Bar. Although you've obviously forgotten that you already did propose this very idea in the Saloon Bar a few weeks ago. However, don't forget to announce in the Saloon Bar when you move a page out of draftspace and into mainspace. And that goes for everybody else who moves a page from draftspace to mainspace too, translation or not. That's because pages that are moved out of draftspace don't appear in Special:NewPages. Spud (talk) 10:48, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

What terrorist organisation do you sympathise with?
Well, 'terrorist' isn't technically the term I should be using, but 'non-state paramilitary actor' just doesn't catch the eye quite as well. However I'm serious, what is one insurgent/terrorist/guerilla group whose motivations you sympathise with and/or support, even if you might think the actions it has taken aren't justified or necessary? Even if you're the world's most big brain enlightened centrist, there must be at least one you agree with, if only tangentially. Comrade General Pootis (talk) 16:36, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Because of my Ashkenazi Jewish heratige, I am a secret agent of Mossad and I also work with the Elders of Zion.🇱🇮 — Jeh2ow Damn son!  17:28, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Everyone has their own reasons to fight, some of them are more.... questionable than others, but everyone has their reasons, all of which are legitimate. Take Daesh for example, on the surface it's a bunch of Jihadist caliphate wannabes, in reality it's a lot deeper, Daesh, like al-Qaeda before them, has co-opted the frustration and anger many of the Arab (and wider Muslim) countries have had over the past century of repeat humiliations, so I think the issue is a bit more nuanced than simply "this group is terrorist therefore bad" or "this group is freedom fighter therefore good." — Oxyaena Harass  17:54, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I sympathize with the Conservapedia Liberation front, which bravely struggles against the tyranny of Andy Schlafly. 18:34, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * #Resist . — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  18:42, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll happily sign up with whichever one wants to make me Caliph. Being caliph would rock.  Caliphs go to work in their pyjamas, which makes sense, since the job consists mostly of lounging around on pillows..  You get a harem, a hookah, a jewelled turban and matching camel, and a brightly colored tent.  This job has my name all over it. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 18:54, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Some of the Kurdish groups I guess.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 19:18, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * In this type of thought experiment- I would go with either the Kurds or the Palestinian Liberation Front. It is not actually supporting a terror group but rather looking at motives. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:33, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Is Earth First still on the go? Let's smash up some JCBs. And some of the independence movements in the Caucasus seem quite reasonable when they're not killing hundreds of children: would you rather be part of Russia or live in some funky mountain microstate like a central Asian Liechtenstein? --Annanoon (talk) 11:31, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It's funny because I was strongly against the Irish nationalist cause until I ended up hanging out with my IRA associated relatives. I'm now, still, strongly against it. Turns out that, like most contemporary nationalist movements, it's just about drumming up tension to the benefit of whoever's inconvenienced by things like human rights. Not to say the history of Ireland isn't just a list of atrocities committed by the English, but the attitudes of some are like a legitimised version of the "all Germans are Nazis" folk. All English are 18th century Monarchists! Though as per the question: There was a brief period where I did agree with it, because I was surrounded with it for a while without any dissenting views.McUrist (talk) 12:44, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I dunno man; they did vote for Boris. Comrade General Pootis (talk) 05:21, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Can we at last call him Johnson, it's fucked enough without having to call our wannabe dictators by their firendly nicknames, next we'll be on to other warm and cuddly nicknames like "father" or "uncle". It'll be nice to see Johnson build a NI-Scotland bridge only for that bridge to join the United Kingdoms of Great Ireland and Northern BritainMcUrist (talk) 09:01, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

What is your biggest fear?
Mine's fish.--Alola, my name is Delibirda! (talk) 18:59, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I've spent most of the last decade feeling like there's a chance I'll fail at some major aspect of my life and all will come crumbling down leaving me like a man in the desert encountering his own footsteps... that and spidersMcUrist (talk) 19:47, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * In terms of mass, black holes must be my biggest fear. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:29, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Getting old. Well ... getting older.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 20:40, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Surviving my father, I've lived with him the last twenty-odd years, since he had his hip replaced in fact.  He's in better health than me; I am now medically disabled.  I depend on tedious medical treatments that keep me alive in the long run but make me quite ill in the short term.  I can choose to die in a few weeks or months by stopping them.  And I may die at any time anyways,  If I survive him, not only will I be very sad, but I will also have to cope with all the shitwork involved in selling the house and figuring out his finances.  I am too sick to move in any case, and too sick to keep the house Martha Stewarted and Marie Kondoed in the way that will be recommended to sell it; that shit means I can't live here anyways. So it's homelessness or the hospice for me.  I'm rather hoping that I don't have to face any of this.  The final collapse of the United States is a related fear.  Sooner or later the earth is going to swallow up Memphis TN, and the resulting catastrophe is likely to wreak extensive destruction here as well. This will bring down the nation: hundreds of people in my situation died in Puerto Rico after the hurricane, and this will strike the heartland and be a thousand times worse. I am quite sure the nation cannot survive it as a going concern given its current state. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 05:22, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Spiders. Not a rational fear, and I know they're mostly harmless, but they still get to me. 21:42, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If I'm gonna be honest, it's that I fear I'm not gonna make it anywhere in life, I'm handicapped as it is. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  23:24, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * My biggest fear is immortality. 23:29, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Wow, the similarity of my answer to Oxyaena's surprises me. I have worried since I was first diagnosed with Autism(Not to mention being born to a poverty-stricken abusive working class home in the USA) that my life was pretty much preordained to be miserable. I know for a fact American society favors a select few, and I am not of that few. The USA may bill itself the land of opportunity by meritocracy is an illusion created by the elite to flatter themselves. It gives one pause to wonder-do socio-economic factors decide the entire course of your life before you are even born? Is the old Calvinist notion of predestination true after all? I suppose what I fear is not a loss of agency but the revelation I never had any.Flandres (talk) 00:28, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * My fear is losing my entire family and ending up alone from it. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:46, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Having a negative impact on the world. That particular fear is pretty awful to carry because it ramps up my social anxiety and vulnerability to toxic people. On the flip side, it emboldened me to fight against neoliberalism and the internalized self-blame it infects most people with. Colossal Squid (talk) 02:50, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I just hope I die before my robot wife. She hasn't been invented yet, but I already know I couldn't stand to go on without her.  Honestly, though, not being able to breathe is a big fear of mine, I don't like asthma attacks, I can't swim, and yeah, I'm a little wary of fish too.  Smug-ass water-breathers. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:58, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Waking up in a tomato field without my shoes or my glasses. Again.Spud (talk) 05:15, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * My biggest three fears are...in this order: The reestablishment of chattel slavery somewhere in the world. Second would be the end of the march towards gender equality and the world falling back to pre-modern standards. Third (and only because it effects such fewer people but is still important) would be the end of LGTBQ+ rights as we know them (the little that have been achieved in the few countries that take it seriously). That's my biggest fear. It's not a particularly irrational one to imagine realizing itself in the coming decades. Shabi  DOO  05:39, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

My biggest fear has to be the fear of failure (it's called "atychiphobia") and I don't care if you learn fro them. I don't wanna fail. — <font color="Red">Jeh2ow <font color="Blue">Damn son!  14:21, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Any of those dystopic cyberpunk works (Cyberpunk 2020 anyone?) in which megacorps are pretty much de facto states with even private armies that can go more or less toe-to-toe with states, someone's life is cheap and everything else up to someone's harvested organs having a price, and nobody gives a damn about the world in the broadest sense (pollution, societal disruption), etc. becoming true. Panzerfaust (talk) 22:47, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * My biggest fear is dying before my robot wife. I've said this before, but I really think she will be more equipped to deal with my robot adult children, and I just know I couldn't stand to go on without her.  Second biggest fear is drowning/suffocation.  Why does that play as not sincere?  This is sincere. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:22, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

A stopped clock?
I know I should stop but curiosity gets the best of me. I don't know how I wound up in a thread that has some people asking if he's a prophet or shaman (the people in the thread seemed divided on the matter). But the above was from that. I don't know if Manson was crazy or there was something in there. I know he was horrible, but is that any reason to discount the words? Part of me says yes but I wonder if that's just reflex, an emotional appeal.Machina (talk) 05:40, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Even without the murders, Charles Manson was a charismatic cult leader. That means he was extremely good at manipulating people. He would tell people exactly what he thought they wanted to hear in order to get them on his side so that he could use them. And don't go looking for the answers from prophets or shamans. They aren't going to do shit for you. I'd rather you went back to Buddha instead of looking for the answers from Charles fucking Manson for fuck's sake! Spud (talk) 11:10, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That's what I call some "half-baked philosophical bullshit" right there, which is what one would expect from a mediocre flower child folk singer. :p Sounds better than it means. Probably sounds deep after your recreational drug of choice. Can be summed up as "I'm dangerous and smart REBEL, man, and life is beautiful. Except for all these other humans in THE SYSTEM, fuck them." About what you expect, really. Soundwave106 (talk) 13:47, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * One of my childhood favorites... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9u5iHzag120
 * Ariel31459 (talk) 22:37, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This was the thread that I got it from:https://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/14977322/fpart/18/vc/1#14977322
 * I regretted reading it though as it made me question culture and humanized the guy (apparently he had a sucky childhood). I'm not sure how to think of him. I mean what he did wasn't right, but the upbringing probably didn't help.Machina (talk) 02:26, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You should humanize him. He was human. He wasn't a monster. He was just a man who did horrible things and persuaded others to do horrible things on his behalf because they believed he was the fucking Messiah. Which he wasn't anymore than he was a guru or a shaman. You needn't waste your time feeling sorry for him now that he's dead. But I think you might have to be careful you don't get taken in by similar charismatic cult leaders like him alive today. You probably won't be conned into murdering celebrities in order to start a race war. But you could get scammed for everything you've got and end up cut off from everyone you know. Spud (talk) 05:21, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * "This person did horrific things that are unjustifiable and that should never be forgotten" and "this person is a human being who affords the minimum level of dignity all humans do" are not incompatible.  Shabi  DOO  11:06, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Tell your Senator to vote no on Trump's latest Fed nominee.
Trump recently nominated anti-Fed crank, Judy Shelton, to be on the Board of Governors. Shelton has advocated abolishing the Fed and returning to the gold standard. Indeed, she prefers a worldwide common currency based on gold. She was strongly opposed to low interest rates, QE, and blamed he Fed for the recession. She doesn't totally fit the bill of an anti-Fed conspiracy theorist, but she gets close. Anyway, now that Trump is president she is all for cutting rates and is open to whatever Fed activism is needed to gin up his economy. When Trump was running for office he claimed that the economy was in a bubble under Obama, that rates were too low and needed to be raised, the dollar was being devalued, and the whole economy was propped up artificially be Jennet Yellen and the Fed for political reasons. Now that he is president the Fed is conspiring against him with "quantitative tightening" with its supposedly dramatic increases in short term interest rates. The Fed has to be politically neutral, make sure Trump doesn't put one of his cronies in charge. Get some boring nerd who has been a banker or academic economist for 30 years in there. Source: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/which-judy-shelton-will-the-fed-get-gold-standard-advocate-or-trump-defender-2020-01-28 Neo Stalinist (talk) 06:20, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I prefer people who actively help the poor and relieve their poverty, even (for a given value of "even") at the expense of economic "efficiency" (efficiency at the cost of suffering), rather than some random ass banker with a dollar fetish. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  13:27, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You're not gonna get one of those people with the current Senate and President. All you can do is try to get this one crazy person blocked. 13:39, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I kinda wanna be a Robin-Hood-like person. I have the rich pay their fair share of taxes (remember, Bill Gates said that he would like to pay $400 million in taxes) and I will help the people who are too poor to have jobs. That's who I wanna be. And Trump as well as Judy ain't that type of person. — <font color="Red">Jeh2ow <font color="Blue">Damn son!  14:19, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

YouTube, Archive.org, and Alex Jones
, Continuing the discussion from How to download an entire YouTube channel easily…

I just finished cleaning up the YouTube links from the Alex Jones page. It was a big mess of broken links due to Jones having been deplatformed in 2018. The lesson learned from this cleanup is that Archive.org does an awful job of archiving YouTube. Mostly, Archive.org does not archive YouTube videos even when they say that they have (i.e., their blue links). Blue links often say "Sorry, the Wayback Machine does not have this video (oGgN-uk5o9w) archived (or not indexed yet).", even for videos that have been 'archived' from years ago. Bongolian (talk) 18:22, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

SATs are pointless
Why force teens to study hard just to get into college when you can just let anyone in? I should know: a friend of mine tried to study like hell just to get into Stanford. I would love to go to Stanford myself, but regardless, why are SATs a thing? — <font color="Red">Jeh2ow <font color="Blue">Damn son!  02:01, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Notice how much money you spend to take the SAT. That’s why. 03:06, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I entirely avoided taking SATs together since I know I won't be able to attend the colleges there. My high school grades were just not all that great, 3.2 GPA, no way am I really going to get into the big public universities with that. My plans were to attend community college and then transfer, and I just got way better grades there than I ever did at high school (which I hated with a passion of an angry sun). So, I'll never be sure how well I did in the SATs, though I do guess I'll be fine because I tend to score advanced in the California STAR testing anyway. Fun fact, for some reason, California has bad scores across the board in public education, though I must've been raised in a good district that emphasizes education, since I'm really surprised California did so bad. 04:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I will say one thing about SATs, some of the texts they make you read and answer questions on are great reads if you're in the mood for a bit of light education on random niche things and/or major historical things. Also their maths puzzles, some of them can be fun to solve. 82.36.198.177 (talk) 13:36, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * 3.2 GPA should be fine for Cal State, maybe even some of the "less popular" UCs. But community college and then transferring is a better idea anyway for a lot of people, I think, since it eases you into a college environment and saves money.
 * In my case I just do a lot better in the college environment rather than freaking grade school where you wake up the sun is barely up and they expect you to sustain attention for like 6 hours straight while they dogpile homework on you. It's more representative of my grades compared to the academic agony that high school was strangling me with. I had a 3.2 GPA in high school, which I was ashamed of, but my college score is a lot better, being practically mostly As, a few Bs, and one C, making it, what, K think 3.7-3.8? Great. 18:36, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It's an IQ test in a shallow academic disguise; they could ask about the things you learn in school, but prefer to make dumb logic puzzles using those skills. The idea is to prevent schools with grade inflation from placing their students at all the best colleges, while schools with standards end up not placing.  The reality of it is it's a billion dollar industry, and adds next to nothing to the process.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:02, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It literally originated as an IQ test intended to show that whites were smarter and to make sure non-whites were kept out of "polite society" so they wouldn't taint it with Negro blood (see Wikipedia). Now it functions to keep out the poors, since kids of well-off families can afford (in both time and money) test prep classes and retaking the test a bunch of times. Grade inflation is a lesser factor, since admissions departments generally figure out what schools do it and adjust accordingly, though I suppose it works at the margins (someone who gets all "A"s at their fancy private school because they're the dean's grandson but can't add two numbers). But of course if you're wealthy you can just buy your kid an admission slot anyway. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 08:37, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Piss water
I swear to Goat I won't even touch any Budlight ever again, oh good god. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  12:25, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd say that goes for most American big label beer. Piss water. I did however have some exceptional American local beers. I wish I could remember what they were called. A red beer from Massachusetts and a Blonde beer from upstate New York. Very nice. When I lived in Ottawa we'd drive to New York state to buy beer. 75% cheaper in NY than ont. Coming back the Canadian customs people would ask how long we'd been in the US. Only the day. Oh so you have to pay duties on those beer. Okay...how much is it? They'd consider the paper work involved in a couple cases of American beer and the hassle and say "okay...but next time you'll have to pay it". And wave us on. Like they were doing us a favor. The thing that was on our minds every time we crossed the bridge (a couple decades ago) into New York state was "ugh...so creepy...we are now in a place with the death penalty. They execute people here" Shabi  DOO  13:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I swear to Satan that all beer is piss water. Not sure how anybody could drink it. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 14:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If only microbrews weren't so damn expensive.... — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  17:48, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I liked IPAs before that became A Huge Thing, especially in New England, and will like them long after. Long Trail is the best non-microbrew for that. And Japanese beer is nice. The Blade of the Northern Lights (<font face="MS Mincho" color="black">話して下さい ) 18:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I enjoy micro and small brewery beers, but wish that American IPA had never been invented. I prefer beer that does not taste like Pine-Sol. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 18:19, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the bitterness fits my personality too well. But for non-IPAs, a good porter, stout, or German-style microbrew is excellent too. The Blade of the Northern Lights (<font face="MS Mincho" color="black">話して下さい ) 18:28, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Try a draft beer, which is anything not made by Anheuser-Busch or Coors. In my native Cleveland, we got the Great Lakes Brewing Company: you should give it a try. — <font color="Red">Jeh2ow <font color="Blue">Damn son!  18:58, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

"Bear Whiz Beer. It's in the water… That's why it's yellow." — Fun:Firesign Theatre from Everything you Know Is Wrong. Bongolian (talk) 19:43, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I also don't really like any beer. 20:27, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not much of a drinker, but most beer I've tried suited me. I don't think I can stand light, though. 20:42, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

where I grew up and did most of my drinking, and still drank, beer meant lager, usually a stella. the occasional old man would buy a bitter, occasionally some one would be giving Guinness ago, but lager was the staple in pubs, bitters and stouts and the like tasted vile, and while all lager tasted like stale piss, you'd get accustomed to the taste that on occasion a pint would be almost refreshing. its always been an anathema to me to hear people talking about strong flavours, local beers and with open contempt for lager as little more than piss. no one drank anything but lager. the occasional jd and coke in between a pint of wife beaters, or a bottle of bud if you made it to a club. you drank lager, your dad drank lager, alcopops was for girls, cider was for underaged drinkers, while real ale was for middle class wankers. it was drunk to get you pissed but not so pissed you couldn't throw a punch at closing time without being sick on your shoes. I moved away from that world near 20 years ago. dunno what shift workers and builders drink these days on a night out. not my scene anymore. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:33, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Marketing, tribal ethos, and alcohol has always been funny. When I visited London about a decade ago I actually preferred the "real ale" bitters to the light Euro lagers that were in vogue, due to the heavier caramel flavor. Of course, this was associated with the "old fart" working class as you point out because reasons, but whatever. The American craft brew scene kind of developed in the 1980s and 1990s in part from Americans visiting Europe and realizing America's mass market adjunct pilsners were awful even from a pilsner perspective, and "real ales" were some of the inspiration. How this developed into "IPAs above all" trend among American hipsters is a topic for another day (and I like "West Coast" style IPAs, but am meh on the current "New England" IPA trend, as well as the sour trend). But it does mean we do brew some non-pisswater in other styles now -- for example, regarding Jeh2ow's reference, pilsner oriented lager fans should be happy with Great Lakes Brewing's Dortmunder Gold, a far superior lager than anything done by massive American lager companies. (In keeping with liking the caramel themes, I personally prefer the Vienna style lager they do, Eliot Ness.) Soundwave106 (talk) 19:03, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Just going to put it out there, as someone who liked IPAs years before it exploded like it has now, that I don't love the new crowd claiming to like them either. My guess is they'll move on to saison in due time, which I like some but not as much. And my experience with New England IPAs (being from the section of Connecticut that's both New York and New England, with easy access either way) is they really only work if they're actually from New England; imitations from other parts of the country are awful. For something less bitter, helles style ales work well, and of course there's always Sam Adams. The Blade of the Northern Lights (<font face="MS Mincho" color="black">話して下さい ) 19:57, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It isn't bitterness I mind in the IPAs. I like quite bitter beers like altbiers and North German pilseners like Jever.  It's the overwhelming use of American hops like Cascade as aroma hops that I dislike.  American hops just don't taste very good when used in that capacity.  The basic stocks of them were created for flavering American mass market lagers, and they sort of work when used as sparingly as you'd expect from the genre.  American hops tend to taste like turpentine.  They overwhelm all else when added as dry-hops.  And they conveniently hide any flaws in the underlying beer, which is one reason for the popularity of the style with brewers. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 22:20, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I hate the bitterness that has become the staple "flavour" of microbrews here - you can't taste any malt at all :( As a result I'll generally got for any European style lager - eg Heineken or Stella - above anything local.  The only local beer I've enjoyed in the last 3-4 years was a Scotch Ale I made a couple of times at a "do it yourself" micro-brewery to their recipe. Aloysius the Gaul 22:37, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Just jumping into this old ass conversation to point out that nitro stouts are the best and pale ales are the worst 15:33, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * As an American alcoholic, I will say Bud Light smacks of piss. It's an alcohol delivery system, kind of like how soda is a sugar delivery system.  O'Douls tastes better than Budweiser without much alcohol.  But I once went to a beer festival and listened to a microbrewer give a quick speech.  He said something close to "you can't get new buyers just calling the other brands bad.  You have to sit down and drink a beer with a person, because they have decided on that for a reason.  And the important thing about something like a Bud Light over a craft beer is that it tastes the same, it has the same effect, every single time.  So to get somebody to try a small batch, you have to show appreciation."  Which is not to say Bud Light doesn't smack of piss, but it, like Michelob or Heineken or Stella Artois or Sapporo or Kirin, has a session flavor.  Not dangerously sharp or floral like an IPA, not sticky or chewy like a darker session ale, like a Killian's or Guinness.  The lager lends to having a second one, ad infinitum, which sells well.  Session lagers lend to sessions.  The worst beer I've ever had was a Keystone Ice.  It, if it still exists which I hope to God it doesn't but I'm sure it does, comes in a black can instead of a blue one, because it's awful poison.  I once had a beer from a 30 pack called Beer 30.  Keystone Ice was worse. Bud Light is ok.  Quick caveat, I have bought a BAD six pack from a microbrewer, but they had to sell the entire batch because the brewery couldn't survive otherwise.  It was awful, much closer to pisswater than y'all are worried about.  Keystone Ice is poison, Steel Reserve is a better version of the worst thing.  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:05, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Is "tough on crime" really about racism?
Am I only one who thinks that the idea that "tough on crime" politics and the base of people who support them aren't really, primarily about race? That may be what most sociologists and political scientists say, but those of us who live in the real world and actually know "tough on crime" folks see a much more complicated reality. From my experience nothing gets these types into more of a "HANG THEM!" rage than hearing about crimes against children, and the stereotypical child molester is white. While there is a racial component to certain "tough on crime" tropes ("gang bangers", etc.) there are plenty of others who don't.

In fact, "tough on crime" sheriffs often get elected in rural white counties on a platform of cracking down on the local "scum", and these "scum" are overwhelmingly white. If "tough on crime" were nothing more than a "dog whistle" or a code word for racism, you'd expect the supporters of this kind of politics to be silent or go easy on white criminals. They absolutely don't - just the opposite. While I'm sure that there is overlap between being "tough on crime" and being racially bigoted, that is primarily because they are both part of a reactionary authoritarian worldview, not because one is purely the product of the other. The same can be said with regards to the close cousin of tough-on-crime politics - anti-welfare politics. The demonization of criminals and welfare recipients are indeed very closely related to each other, but academics and progressives again misdiagnose this as "coded racism" (Lee Atwater's drunken rants being the best "evidence" they can come up with in most cases). The fact that many people of color are themselves supporters of the "tough on crime" and anti-"welfare queen" mentality proves this is ridiculous.

In reality, it would be much more accurate to say that this mentality is the product of classism. I don't mean classism in the sense of bourgeoisie vs. proletariat since many of the "tough on crime" types are working class. In fact politicians often portray themselves as "populists" and representing the views of the "people" against the elites who they portray as "soft on crime", and many of the people are indeed attracted to that. In reality, anti-crime and anti-welfare politics are a dog-whistle against the poorest and most marginalized people at the bottom of society, who all the other "decent" classes of society see as subhuman waste. These are the people called the "undeserving poor", the "untermenschen" or to use a Marxist concept, the "lumpenproletariat". The ideological basis of tough-on-crime is not racism but producerism, an ideology based on uniting the rest of society against the "worthless, undeserving" lumpenproletariat.

Of course, this class is, in the US, disproportionately black which means that being "tough" on them disproportionately hurts black people. And the fact that they are disproportionately black is a historical legacy of racism, so obviously race is an issue here. But it's not the most fundamental issue - the target of popular anger and hate among people of all races is all the "underclass", regardless of their color. Manyw (talk) 20:42, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd say it's both racist and classist. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  21:05, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Even that though is a pretty Americentric perspective. "Tough on crime" is a major component of reactionary right-wing populist politics throughout the world including 99.9% white countries like Poland and Lithuania. Or, for that matter, countries where everyone is non-white like the Philippines. How could it be a "racial dog-whistle" in homogeneous countries? Manyw (talk) 21:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No country is racially homogeneous. Further, you disproved your own conclusion with ""Tough on crime" is a major component of reactionary right-wing populist politics throughout the world" Let's see, what do all those parties share in common? Racism, xenophobia, authoritarian ideals... Gee, it's almost as if they're all bigots, and that Amero-centric politics influences less prosperous countries... 21:35, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * "That may be what most sociologists and political scientists say, but those of us who live in the real world and actually know 'tough on crime' folks see a much more complicated reality."
 * 🤨 I guess anecdotes trump what the aloof ivory tower geezers have to say. 22:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Obviously, spending years studying something, having your knowledge actually tested and being verified through independent research leaves you with only a superficial, narrow understanding of something complicated. For the real thinky know knows on things like law and criminology you need to work years as a builder who occasionally skims daily mail headlines.McUrist (talk) 09:08, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Spud's third Spanish translation
I'm happy to announce that I have just moved La naranja mecánica, my Spanish translation of the A Clockwork Orange article, out of draftspace and into mainspace. Other Spanish speakers are, of course, welcome to correct any mistakes I have made, rephrase anything they think could be phrased better and generally do whatever they like to improve the article. Spud (talk) 10:32, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

What happened to the Pointless Poll???
Bernie was approaching - or at - 100 votes before, and now Joe Biden is at 120??? Did the poll break, or did like 80 people suddenly become centrists when I wasn't looking? All the votes for Vermin Supreme have now switched to Trump too! Minish (talk) 11:06, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Apparently some dude switched the names out. Actually pretty clever. Probably the longest vandalism has gone undiscovered on this wiki for a while Minish (talk) 12:24, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That's one reason that the poll's pointless. Another is that anyone can stuff the ballot box. Bongolian (talk) 17:20, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Well at least now we have confirmation that Trump is the same as Vermin Supreme. 19:26, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That is an insult to Mr. Boothead. Cosmikdebris (talk) 19:29, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Vote for the boothead, not the bootyhead. Bongolian (talk) 22:38, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I fucking hate PayPal
I just started a PayPal account, and someone gave me $20. I can’t accept, however, cause you need to verify your account, and you can only do that with 2 options: link your bank account, which I don’t have, or apply for a fucking credit card. I also just sold something on eBay, and I still need verification, and I can’t ship after Thursday. Fuck PayPal. — <font color="Red">Jeh2ow <font color="Blue">Damn son!  23:13, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You can use a debit card. 01:26, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Have you tried rebooting? — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  01:47, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It finally worked. I was about to call my lawyers. — <font color="Red">Jeh2ow <font color="Blue">Damn son!  19:05, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Hotel Paradise
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sxFyu_U2go A classic,. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  01:44, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Love that video. Love the Max Fleischer cartoons it's based on. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 18:07, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7VUU_VPI1E
 * There are two beautiful, classic Disney shorts directed by Ub Iwerks from 1929 that are very similar to thses:
 * The Haunted House
 * The Skeleton Dance
 * --Cosmikdebris (talk) 19:37, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Purchase, a hold or position on something for applying power advantageously, or the advantage gained by such application. Good hold, I like SQN and old animation. In a bit of a digression, I present the following.  I don't really like the music and the animation style is a little played out anymore, but about 5 years ago this was cool  The animator is solid.  I'm not paying Colgrave a dime until Malki sends me my book.  HOLY SHIT I just checked and I blew off Malki's book, it's shipping to me now.  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:51, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

And here's one from Wikimedia Commons. If you click on the black rectangle, you'll see the 1933 Snow White starring Betty Boop and featuring Cab Calloway singing "St. James Infirmary Blues". Spud (talk) 13:54, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Would the micronation "Principality of Hutt River" make a good article?
Not sure how many of you RationalWikians out there know about the Principality of Hutt River though. So I will give the run down- it is a micronation in Australia founded by a guy who got into a tax dispute with the local government. It maintains the claim that it is a sovereign nation and the family who runs it refuses to pay taxes to the Australian government.

Wikipedia Article- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Hutt_River

Official Website-  http://www.principality-hutt-river.com/

Could make a good addition to the tax protester section. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 03:29, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * There's a 1-paragraph section already on the Micronation page. You could start by expanding that. Probably not worth a whole page to itself in my view. Bongolian (talk) 04:26, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * And if 'fire and flood' approach would the locals deal with the problems themselves?
 * They could probably have done a Star Wars version of this and made a few dollars. Anna Livia (talk) 12:49, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Medicare 4 All
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Z2XRg3dy9k Great stuff from John Oliver as usual. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  15:39, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh boy, video not available. Did it get taken down? (Actually, it may be region-locked) 82.36.198.177 (talk) 16:06, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * IIRC all HBO content gets locked for ukMcUrist (talk) 16:35, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Lol UK sux. 18:00, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * UK is stupid that's why. 18:43, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I assert my dominance over the Brits with a barrage of American flags  21:19, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Whats the tl:dr version? I'm not a fan of M4A as envisioned by Sanders or Warren.Neo Stalinist (talk) 21:37, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Much of it was pointing out that the conservative Chicken Littles tend to not realize that our shitty health care system already has large wait times (easy to see this if you, say, don't take the PPO option on dentist care) and has basically no choice (eg, your employer chooses your insurer, and you have to basically stay "in network" or you get monetarily fucked). On top of this, US health care is ridiculously expensive, in part due to the astonishing amount of administrative bullshit and monopolized companies. That conservative media has somehow convinced some American citizens that the US health care system actually is a great example in developed nations is one giant propaganda coup, eh? I'm personally for single payer for this reason, if we're going to enjoy the crap that comes with monopolies, we might as well get one with a bit of government cost control. Soundwave106 (talk) 13:36, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Also blocked in New Zealand Aloysius the Gaul 23:59, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't want to let NZ know how good the ACC is McUrist (talk) 09:40, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Here ya go - start at 6:00

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k62pLC3nbX0

Tory government advisor says black people have low IQs
All races have the same IQ right? What next, penile calipers misused for phrenology? This is the kind of thing Hitler said. Red Lion (talk) 19:59, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Who voted conservative in the UK and expected something else, I wonder. 20:52, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * But but but but it's Labor who are antisemitic! 21:18, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * While Labour does indeed have a problem with antisemitism, most of such racist BS like that comes from the right, regardless of party. — <font color="Red">Jeh2ow <font color="Blue">Damn son!  15:19, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Labour said nothing about the Windrush scandal - so racist as well as anti-semitic; also nothing about the problems with Universal Credit, so they are anti-ordinary people. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:26, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * everything you have just said there is complete dogshit. well done. AMassiveGay (talk) 02:31, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Well ... the concept of "race" itself is pretty dubious. And for that matter so is IQ. The biggest factor in your IQ score is education. At the most basic level IQ tests are written and include questions which have a mathematical component. So if your reading and numeracy skills are bad then you are going to do badly on the tests.

So IQ tests are not really testing something innate and biological but, mostly, something acquired.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 13:03, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * And even if you could somehow devise a test that eliminates a non-biological variation(impossible), there's a huge gap between "biological" and "genetic". A single soluble fat solid being included in baby formula created a 10% point difference in infant cognitive test scores(not measuring nearly the same kinds of tasks as IQ) between experimental and control groups of formula fed infants in this study, a finding that has been replicated numerous times.  It's a trivial difference.  A single fat globule.  And it can create differences as big as the supposed "black white IQ gap".  Genetic determinism is an asinine ideology only idiots like. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:26, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

A Scottish paper apparently revealed that Andrew Sabisky had made some rather sexist posts on Reddit under the user name "thedovelamenting". Assuming this information is accurate, based on the very minor Reddit group called "Intelligence Studies" that he moderated, what this also means is that he was pretty deep into "scientific racism" (twice linking to James Thompson for instance, and several articles from the sometimes questionable Intelligence journal). IQ is too complicated to make these sort of simplistic caricatures seen in the topic list, but alt-rightish figures love to try, eh? So here we are. (I do nonetheless wonder how the typically Anglo-Saxon male alt-right reconciles this recent fascination with scientific racism, and the observation that some of the highest performers on IQ tests are (())...) Soundwave106 (talk) 19:16, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Probably the same of how they treat IQ tests when the East Asians allegedly score better than them: make up new qualities that the whites are better at and try to convince themselves that those qualities are more important anyway. And continue disparaging black people by saying "well it's still established that black people are inferior rofl". James Thompson did exactly this by saying "well Asians aren't as curious or creative as we whites are". 22:30, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Holy shit that is fucking terrifying. It's like a grab bag of the stuff you imagine the Tories want, but can't get away with: regressive religious crap, racism, eugenics and classism. He's like a the Tory collective id personified. But of course there's nothing rotten here, I can't hear any dog whistles, despite all the dogs. McUrist (talk) 09:36, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

This story is about the vetting of advisors amid Dominic Cummings’ drive to employ “misfits and weirdos”. its not about any innate racism in the conservative party - something not exactly evident when you look at the cabinet. AMassiveGay (talk) 02:39, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * So black people do have lower IQs? Red Lion (talk) 16:35, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * not remotely what I said nor implied you sack of shit. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:01, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Men's issues article (no it does not seem to go into misogyny)
https://www.realmenrealstyle.com/mens-issues-problems/

These are legit issues many men face and no this does not go into bashing women. The bad thing is that men's issues tend to get mixed in with hate speech and said issues do not get resolved at all.

How on Earth do you create a constructive dialogue on men's issues without creating arguing from both the nutcase MRA's and your small number of feminists who take women's rights to the extreme? The intent of this post is creating constructive dialogue on actual issues affecting men without idiots bringing up nonsense. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 03:24, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it's a general rule that you'll do fine in a well-moderated community that emphasizes respect for other viewpoints provided honesty is exercised. I think, however, men's issues keep getting brought up (usually by a man) when women's issues are being discussed, and try not doing that as it pretty much changes the subject to try to cater to whoever brings it up. However, I think what's unifying men's problems is the concept of toxic masculinity, so understanding that is key to dealing with the issues outlined.
 * Some topics are easier to discuss without woman bashing or claims of male oppression like testicular cancer or high suicide rates but that doesn't mean it's easy to find such flrums. It's amazing how quickly a discussion about tips on shaving your balls turns into woman trashing. Finding a civil forum discussing more inflammatory topics like father's rights or "what is consent"? seems quite a challenge...doesn't it? I have up viewing such forums cause they are usually so toxic I get too nauseous. Shabi  DOO  11:09, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Andy's Man Club does some excellent male suicide prevention work in the UK. They'd also welcome anyone wishing to establish a group outside their current towns and cities. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 14:05, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

All are one in Darkseid
Darkseid is. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  07:41, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No, he's not. And he ain't been since Kirby left. Kencolt (talk) 04:26, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Vietnam War in film
You know, most depictions of the Vietnam War are from the American perspective, and portray the Americans as the victims while in reality they were the aggressors (debatable for the foot soldiers, many of whom weren't there of their own free will, but they still served an aggressor, that being Uncle Sam). I'd be interested to see a film or a book or whatever depicting Vietnam from the Vietnamese perspective, since in general American films portray them as an "other," complete monsters with a red agenda, rather than the all-too-real people they actually were. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  13:50, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure no one in the army actually wanted to fight. After Kennedy's assasination, Lyndon B. Johnson took office, where he ended up being the one who began the Vietnam War. Americans didn't want to fight in a small country in Asia, and they didn't want to leave their families. It was soon apparent that Johnson and Nixon would force the soldiers to committ war crimes, so protests were more widespread. No one wanted a war, even if it was a war against America's sworn enemy. And with Iran a possible battleground for America, we may unfortunately have another Vietnam. — <font color="Red">Jeh2ow <font color="Blue">Damn son!  14:20, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Domino theory is a hell of a drug. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:24, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I saw one Vietnamese made film and one Soviet/Vietnamese co-production. Both were in the 80s I think. Cinematically they were absolutely terrible. And extremely bised (as much as the Hollywood ones). Though in fact a few American films did show how cruel the US policy towards civilians could be. I wish I could remember the name of the hollywood film but one showed a US soldier stopping others from raping a girl (something that was utterly rampant during the Vietnamese war). But that was a rarity. Both US and Vietnamese films on the war are extremely bised (in how they show victimhood and war propaganda). The more honest ones show the fallout after the war (both sides) like the treatment of Vets or how Vietnamese suffered mental dmage because of chemical weapons etc. Shabi  DOO  16:45, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * platoon has a scene similar to what you describe, and casualties of war's plot has rape central to the plot. most Vietnam films I have seen don't show the us in a positive light all, neutral at best. they seem to focus more on the dehumanising aspect of war and it futility. its only really john waynes green berets and mel gibsons we were soldiers that did that. the green berets is the only film I can think of that was outright pro war propaganda. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:36, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * They're all ultimately agnostic to the causes of the Vietnam War itself, a war that was fought on lies and false pretenses, a war of imperialist aggression. At best they put to light the suffering of war without examining the politics of it. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  00:48, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * because most films about the Vietnam war are war films. the focus is at troop level and the politics are irrelevant at that point. you want something like the quiet American which looks at the very beginning of American involvement, and the protagonist are civilians. or maybe heaven and earth which has a Vietnamese woman as protagonist - ive not seen that one though. honestly though, what do you expect from Hollywood? do you think a film examining the politics of the war or looking at it from a Vietnamese perspective would ever be commercial enough for Hollywood, particularly in the years after the war when it was still an open wound? look at this way, how many films have come out Hollywood about ww2 that arnt about americans? there is more to cinema than Hollywood. AMassiveGay (talk) 02:24, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe it will change with time. I guess Second World War films are the same.  But what about films which show the American Indian (I´m not sure if that the correct term) perspective?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 10:01, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It's possible to find books from the Vietnamese perspective, Dang Thuy Tram's diary makes for some fascinating, if horrifying, reading; just reminds you that absolutely no one in that war was remotely sympathetic. The Blade of the Northern Lights (<font face="MS Mincho" color="black">話して下さい ) 16:48, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * My favourite book fromy American lit class was pullitzer prize winner: A good scent from a strange mountain. A collection of short stories most from the perspective of Vietnamese immigrants. Some touch on the war. The best story by far is written by a former prostitute who an American soldier married and brought with him back to America. Written in her own voice in broken English it still sticks with me after 15 years. Books and diaries on war have always done so much more for me than film. Shabi  DOO  19:41, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The biggest issue with American portrayals of the Vietnam war in film are that they are American-centric. That's fine for Americans but it does distort what the Vietnam war actually was, a civil war between the North and South over what independent Vietnam would be, communist or capitalist. The United States didn't start the Vietnam war, and millions of Vietnamese died fighting each other, with America playing a supporting role for the South and the USSR/China supporting the North. It is however very likely that the South would have fallen faster without backing from the USA, Australia, Thailand, and others.
 * I noticed some other misconceptions in this thread. The war didn't start with Johnson, the first US military personal were in Indochina as far back as the 50s to support the French. They were small and played a very minimal supporting role, but they were there. Also, the war wasn't really unpopular at first and didn't become so until classified papers started getting leaked that exposed a lot of shady activity. The USA had been successful holding the line in Korea which payed off in the long run with 50+ million Koreans living free prosperous lives, not being ruled by the Kim dynasty. The war itself was fought for the same containment reasons because domino theory was basically correct at the time. Communism in Asia spread by force from the USSR to Mongolia and China. Then into Korea and ultimately Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia with active communist movements in the Philippines and India. That's billions of people. None of this was voted on, just forced by revolutionaries who never allowed free elections once they took over(always with Soviet or Chinese backing). So yeah, Vietnam was awful, and American films only capture the American perspective, but at least in the first few years fighting it made some sense to people.Neo Stalinist (talk) 04:48, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Said revolutionaries were always popular movements btw, the communists were usually indigenous grown activists engaging in active decolonization struggles. Your argument holds the same weight as the arguments against the Arab Spring, revolutionary waves usually start when the populace had had enough, it's not like they could vote the colonizers out. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  07:34, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

What a Wonderful World
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nGKqH26xlg This is a beautiful song. RIP Louis Armstrong. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  14:38, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Messaging
Hi, I’m new here and I have a question; is it possible to message rationalwikia users?Uriel Blackwood (talk) 19:36, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You can send emails by visiting a user page and clicking the menu option on the left column, if the user has that feature enabled. It's generally not a good idea to use it for communication about wiki editing, but it's there for a reason.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:52, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If you are a Nigerian prince trying to import many millions of pound dollar euros, we are probably not your target audience.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 20:42, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Speak for yourself. 20:47, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks for the heads-up ikanreed. Actually, I wanted to ask another user a question. I wish I was a Nigerian prince Bob because then I could contribute to vast sums to this wiki.Uriel Blackwood (talk) 22:12, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Rational"Wikia"? 22:20, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Knockoff version of RW sold by Nigerian princes. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  03:53, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * With exactly 419 articles. The Blade of the Northern Lights (<font face="MS Mincho" color="black">話して下さい ) 16:50, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The usage is 'Rational wiki users/contributors' or Rationaliwikians. RW as such is probably not within the remit of the Wikia site. Anna Livia (talk) 12:50, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Constitutionality of the Logan Act
The Logan Act is making its rounds on Twitter again, and while my libertarian tendencies may flare up a bit here I wanna leave those aside and focus on the constitutionality of the Logan Act itself, something that's never been ruled on as the Logan Act's never really been enforced (making it an act of dubious enforceability irregardless). My position is that the Logan Act violates the First Amendment as it constricts the speech and expression of non-state actors of US origin, I cite Citizens United as precedent here, since if something as unthinkable as election donation regulations can be ruled as "unconstitutional abridgement of corporation's rights to freedom of expression," then something that may likewise be unthinkable here depending on one's perspective (diplomacy from an American actor contravening the position of the US Government), banning it and/or constricting it may also be viewed as unconstitutional in light of the precedent that Citizens United presented. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  00:42, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * AFAIK the logan act doesn't stop you saying what you like - it stops you ACTING on behalf of the USA in diplomatic relations, because such acts are reserved in the constitution for the President - I don't see any issue here except from numpties. For a significant but readable discussion of the act and its origins and constitutional bbasis see https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-3/the-conduct-of-foreign-relations Aloysius the Gaul 01:02, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair, but the act itself has never been enforced, and until the courts rule on it directly I think it's still good form to question its constitutionality, and ultimate enforceability. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  03:48, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You should focus on more important constitutionally-dubious laws, like the ban on private nuclear weapons which arguably violates the 2nd amendment. I think we should question the constitutionality of bans on nuclear devices. --Annanoon (talk) 18:08, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The Supreme Court has already ruled the Second Amendment is not an "unlimited right." Wikipedia says that a second circuit court has ruled it "likely unconstitutional," as has the House Committee on Ethics. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  07:30, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello everyone
Is it okay if I vent about sad/heavy shit here that rn I don’t really feel comfortable talking about to anyone I know? 14:37, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * of course you can. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:45, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Everybody's gotta vent sometime. 14:49, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you pals. Could you please show me how to create one of those collapsible box things? I have a LOT to say I don’t want it to be toooo intrusive 14:57, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Start with end with   ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:01, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks a bunch. Appreciate it. 15:04, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I’m just, in a really bad place. I’ve been going through a weird breakup, I feel like I’ve been a burden on my friends, and for some fucking reason I’ve been reimmersing myself into a very bad period of my life. Tbh I used to be a (fairly unpopular) person here, when I was young and my mental illness was not managed. I’ve been reading old talk page logs from my previous user handle, and reliving the general horror of that point in my life. I’ve been watching YouTube videos from my abuser from 6 years ago. I’ve been trying so hard to stop self harming but I keep finding ways. I can’t stop abusing my pain medication, as well as various things such as Valium and speed. I’m even becoming a daily drinker again, even though drinking is the single worst thing for me and stuff. I have lost about 6-7kg in less than a month without trying. feel like my life is out of control, and even though I have people who love and care about me, I feel incredibly guilty when I talk to them. I’m moving out of my fucked up family home and getting HRT and a job and therapy and education again, which should all be good things, but I feel so scared and overpwhelmed. I’m trying to be optimistic but my brain is constantly showing me the worst possible outcomes to everything. I’ve been crying almost every day for about two months now. I’ve lost interest in everything in my life. I can’t go on antidepressants because they make me manic. I really don’t know what I’m doing and it feels like I’m in an inescapable hole and I’m suffocating. I’m really sorry for putting all this shit out there just like that. I just wanted to get this shit off my chest without burdening people who have already helped me so much. I know I’m going to regret this when I’m sober but right now I feel like I have nobody else I can say this to, and I just want to be honest about this shit with people who don’t know who I am. I’m sorry. It’s just hard. 15:04, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * When I went through a bad breakup, it took me a half year to get to an occasionally stable place. 2 years to find a consistent stability.  That part is normal.  It's hard coping with loss.  It's hard coping with self blame.  I don't know much about addiction, but like affective depression, one of the most powerful weapons you have against it is spending time with other people.  Join a running group.  Join a meetup.  Visit old friends.  That guilty feeling of overburdening them?  Don't dwell on it, but respect it if they tell you you're hurting them.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:32, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the advice. Uhhh CW lots of really dark shit I guess. I have been trying so hard to develop some kind of social life but every time I go outside my autistic brain gets overwhelmed by the sheer amount of people and noise, and I can barely even talk to most people I don’t know unless I’m high on something. I’m rehearsing with my old band tomorrow and I’m excited about the music, but terrified because of the fact that they knew me at the worst point in my life ever (18 month manic rage, suicide attempts, dissociative episodes where I would SH). I hope it goes okay. As for the drugs, I know the drugs are bad but they’re the only way for me to feel anything at all that isn't just vague pain and discomfort. The shitty thing as well is that some drugs are way too easy for me to get, and some drugs I actually am prescribed to stop me being in agony and hurting myself. As for the breakup, the weird thing is? We’re actually trying to transition to getting back together but that is just so confusing to me and it freaks me out a bit bc I don’t know how to do it. My friends always say they’re more than okay for me to seek help, and they do tell me when they’re not in a good place to help but like. Recently there was three or four days where I was nonstop crying, couldn’t get out of bed, was using ridiculous amount of benzos to actually be able to survive what I was going through. He helped me through that and said I wasn’t a burden on him. But like. I saw how hard it was for him too, bc he actually cares about me. Idk. Everything is just really bleak atm and I don’t often get to talk about that as much as I want to. 15:48, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Please don't apologize for needing someone to talk to. Even if it's just nice people on the internet, talking to people is a good thing. Do what you gotta do for your own mental health. 15:50, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, friend. I feel kinda better now. I think it’s probably just rebound anxiety from the benzo days. I’ll be feeling better in a couple of days I hope. 15:55, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If you're not feeling better, get a spot in a Lutheran service thing. They hard-line, but they don't mix helping and proselytizing.

Anyway, if anyone feels comfortable talking or in some way telling me things will be okay please feel free to do so. I’m sorry, I know I’m being weird as fuck rn 15:09, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Stay strong! 82.36.198.177 (talk) 00:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

The founder of NoFap is filing a lawsuit against... uh... some blokes
He claims he is being harassed and targeted by the porn industry but I doubt this or any of his other positions are based in reality. Anyway, I hope you know you are apparently associated with the porn industry and their plans to have people... enjoy themselves? 14:45, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm gonna bet against insanity as being the instigating factor. I'm gonna guess this is an attempt to use a lawsuit as a attention gathering weapon.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:57, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * QUICK! Make sure you force him to end up jacking off! — <font color="Red">Jeh2ow <font color="Blue">Damn son!  15:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's more likely an attention grabbing weapon more than anything (I didn't mean insanity, just at general odds with reality). I doubt this will get anywhere, if I'm completely honest with you mate.
 * On the nastier side, the person he sued (who appears to be a successful sex researcher) seems to have gotten death and rape threats as a result of this filing. So much for the "redirect horny energy into productivity" ethos. 15:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The sad thing with the NoFap crowd is that (with the help of social conservative stereotypes) I'm willing to bet a lot of them are misdiagnosing the issue. I bet there's many a NoFapper who did actually have a compulsive problem with porn; the problem is, they think the *porn* is the problem when it really is the *compulsive behavior* that is the problem. No surprise that they throw themselves energetically into compulsively ranting *against* porn, with compulsively violent reactions against critics and strange broish claims like porn "emasculates" men. (What, say NoFap, about the women who masturbate to pornography?). They'll probably fall off the wagon into another compulsive behavior soon enough, unfortunately. Soundwave106 (talk) 18:15, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Moderation is an important cognitive skill that is difficult to cultivate. In a lot of ways "no, none at all" is a healthier choice for some people who go off that cliff.  When you then turn that simplification into an ideologically certain general truth about reality, you get slightly batshit.  It'd be like if everyone in AA started talking about how no one should ever drink and alcohol should be banned.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:08, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The difference between alcohol and masturbation is that masturbation is a healthy activity, generally speaking. Nobody was ever arrested for driving after having a wank. 20:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Though you will if you try to do it while driving. Revolverman (talk) 20:47, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * (Caveat, I'm not a drinker, I don't drink) Drinking can be healthy in moderation, and have a positive influence on people's lives.  Social lubrication, decreased risk of dementia, lower rate of cardiac incidents, lower diabetes risk, lower rates of clinical depression compared to both heavy drinkers and abstainers, generally higher levels of life satisfaction.  I'm not sure the benefits outweigh the risks for most people, given how serious abuse is, but they're there.  It's often a bad idea to view things as absolutely good or absolutely evil, unless the evil consequence is undeniably innate to the act.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:15, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Whether something is done too much or too little depends on a combination of factors such as understanding of your own body, mental state, environment, relationships and various other circumstances. Except you probably don't want to go through life drawing up a cost benefit analysis of everything you encounter, so you have to do it once in a while and then set up routines/habits/hard-and-fast rules that will last you until something changes. 82.36.198.177 (talk) 01:03, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Rebecca Watson made a video on this, turns out the NoFap guy is the aggrieved party in question after all: — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena  <font color="Magenta">Harass  07:28, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Thoughts on Trump pardoning convicted felons recently?
Recently Trump pardoned quite a few felons. Most of them politicians convicted of corruption. So what are your thoughts on this? I'll give you my thoughts first. I live in Illinois which has a major corruption problem, you're more likely to be in jail as a governor than being in jail for committing some violent crimes. Our former governor Blagojevich was just pardoned by Trump even though there is literal proof that he tried selling Obama's seat after he became president. Blagojevich deserves to remain in jail and rot for at least 10 more years. RationalHindu (talk) 15:08, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * At a certain point, I don't know what to do about the open and shut freely stated corruption of the republican party. I'm not gonna change the minds of chuds(I can't even imagine Nobs saying something as noncomittal as "Well corruption is bad but..."). They'll fun on deflect on all of it.  Every bit of it.  There's a party whose opinion on power is "More is better and it doesn't matter who I hurt to get it" and somehow voters like them.
 * On a related note, if bloomberg manages to win the democratic nomination, it'll be clear that there's no party that's not like that. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:21, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * All politicians are not immune from some kind of corruption. And are you from Illinois? — <font color="Red">Jeh2ow <font color="Blue">Damn son!  15:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, good. Okay. Both sides bad.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:10, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The US penal system is so inhumanly bad, and US prison sentences so routinely excessive, that anything that gets anyone out of them is a positive development. Even if they were corrupt governors or insider traders. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 17:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree that the US penal system is too much concerned with vengeance. Blagojevich is never going to be a governor again. Not much chance he will commit the same crime again. This "gonna mess you up boy" view of justice doesn't make society better or safer. I would have been fine with Blogojevich getting two or three years. Others wanted a lot more, mostly republicans. However, I take a measure of satisfaction that the disgruntled Illinois statehouse republicans are not

happy.Ariel31459 (talk) 00:07, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Most had served some time or payed fines or something. A lot of them were sleazebags, not habitual violent offenders, so this doesn't worry me too much. None of this comes off as overtly political, like Trump releasing all his closest buddies so they can give him favors in return. A agree with the general notion here that the penal system is messed up, so releasing a few inside traders doesn't hurt. Having studied the prisons system a little bit I am at a loss for any obvious solutions to the big issues plaguing it, namely the large population of prisoners and the horrible violence within it.Neo Stalinist (talk) 04:53, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * They payed fines, which they could obviously afford to. What happens to poor people when they can't afford to pay fines? — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  07:26, 20 February 2020 (UTC)