RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive394

The nightmare that is my life
I think my graphics card died.

My computer refused to boot up out of the blue. After a lot of grief, and reinstalling windows (numerous times!) and losing all my files, well, I have a computer again... unless I update my graphics card drivers, at which point, boot errors and black screens. My card was a Radeon RX 580 4gb, and at 4 years old... would cost $500 to buy again. Because gorram BitCoin miners have bought them all up.

So, I'm looking to bite the bullet and get a new card, but I refuse to get a downgrade. It looks like I'm going for an NVIDIA 1650 or 1660. Thoughts? 01:49, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The GTX 1660 super is pretty decent, I use it on my computer and haven't had many graphics issues. And I use a lot of graphics heavy games. 01:54, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I play a lot of Fallout 4 (with mods, specifically SS2), getting back into either X4:Foundations or Kenshi. Which do you play?  02:00, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Can it run Doom? SixtyNine (talk) 02:10, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Mainly Elite Dangerous, No Man's Sky, and The Ascent right now. 14:28, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * NMS is on my wishlist, I might pick it up when it goes on sale. X4 is kinda like ED (ok... just noticed the unfortunate initials...), if they tried to make a MMORPG minus the MMO, but now adding in the O and trying to add back in the second M.  Oh, and you can build massive factories/stations, capture ships and form small armadas that really don't do much until you decide to exterminate the whole galaxy... 14:53, 11 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Placed order for GeForce GTX 1660 Super 6GB GDDR6. $600+ :'(.  But that's what graphics cards are these days...  But seriously, how the f*** is that "only" $600 when my RX580 4GB GDDR5 is $500?!  I mean, I picked out a good card I guess, but, wtf?
 * When I calm down,, we'll have to be steam friends or something. Play some versus, or just Satisfactory. 04:39, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * If I understand, you're saying the new card is expensive? I think it's a follow-on effect of the pandemic - there's an industry-wide shortage of the things we're still in the midst of - and bitcoin miners contemplating the navel of economics, you need high-end graphics cards for that. Artificius (talk) 14:23, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, VERY expensive. And no, not too much because of the pandemic.  Yeah yeah, more people home, more people playing games, but the real reason for the shortage right now is because more people are buying bitcoin or mining it.  If it wasn't for btc, my card would've been half the price.  14:53, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, I figure it's kinda both. First off, after four years, well, prices do rise.  But more to the point, the higher end cards are insanely expensive because of happy fun Bitcoin Buggers, who have driven them up to absurdist levels.
 * Which means that a lot of hardcore gamers-- the ones who would have been buying those cards-- find themselves unable to afford or unwilling to spend the much inflated prices, and so where they would have bought the top-line latest GPUs, they have to settle for less, meaning they're buying the next step down, which causes the supply of those to drop, which effects those prices, and it (forgive me) trickles down. A card that might well have been $350 or so is instead $450 or more, and so on.
 * Now, add to that an increase in interest in gaming, due to Mankind's recent flight to the Great Indoors. So, the supply goes down even more, and faster, and supply and demand kicks in in areas where it probably wouldn't have-- not to the present extent, anyhow.  Ain't economics fun? Kencolt (talk) 22:06, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Prices don't always rise. I bought a 43'' smart tv for $330 a few years ago, and today it's $300, and before the pandemic's hyperinflation it was $230.  01:19, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * That sounds about right for the average price flux within the described period. 01:28, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, the seller cancelled...
 * ...and the charge is still pending on my bank account.
 * Called bank, they said it would either need to wait for a time to automatically cancel, or the vendor (Newegg) would have to cancel. Trying to get in contact with them, don't need mo' problems... 17:33, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

What fallacy is this (if any)?
Let's say I've presented some study to someone and they say "I too can make up bullshit and claim it's science." What fallacy is that (if any)?&mdash; Unsigned, by: NiciesMan / talk / contribs
 * Sounds like to me. Basically this is when you claim an argument against your position is wrong, and provide no justification (other than your claim that it is wrong). PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 18:44, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It's covered briefly by us here: Argument by assertion. Bongolian (talk) 20:11, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that it is a fallacy. The two statements, "I can make stuff up" and "I can claim it is science" are both true.
 * The probable problem is with the "I too" bit. The implication is that some earlier allegedly scientific claim is also made up.  This might or might not also be true.
 * So it's going to depend on the circumstances and how much the speaker knows about what science really is.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:36, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course the modal "can" in "You can do X" is pretty ambiguous. It may mean "You are able do do X" either physically or intellectually or "You are permitted to do X", or "It is in some way possible to do X" and more.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:59, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Had my second Pfizer shot against Covid19 today
Haven't had any adverse effects by now, 8 hours later. Well, except for deep melancholy...but that happens all the time, and is extremely unlikely to be related. 17:04, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Ay, nice one. I'm getting my first one on Monday. Hope my nurse is not an anti-vaxxer though. That would suck boots. - Rairyu75  ( Talk ) 20:49, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Just wait until tomorrow, that's usually when it hits. But between that and actually getting COVID, the day of aches is worth it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい ) 23:46, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The arm aches now a bit more than it did after the first shot, but nothing else. I measured my temperature and it's actually almost 0.5°C below my usual level. 05:03, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Why do fundamentalists still say evolution contradicts the second law of thermodynamics?
When it is a well known fact that it is wrong? Are they knowingly lying? If not, how else have they not already been made aware of their error? &mdash; Unsigned, by: 2607:FB90:1366:6412:D840:D0C0:44AF:F7C4 / talk
 * It depends on the fundy. For a lot of them, i.e. the rank and file normal people, it's just a talking point they've internalized and taken as true. For the public figures, it can be 50/50 whether they're lying or just willfully ignorant. 00:25, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * (EC) When people want to believe something, they will twist established facts to their liking and ignore counter-arguments. If you enter an argument already taking a claim as read you can point out all the holes in their position as much as possible and get nowhere.-Flandres (talk) 00:28, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Because they don't have any new points. Fundies have no new "evidence" so they will just repeat the old ones hoping to catch gullible people who don't have a science education from high school (and for some of them, high school was decades ago.) SixtyNine (talk) 00:32, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * If you google "arguments creationists shouldn't make" you will find quite a few creationist sites pointing out that arguments made by other less-educated creationists are wrong. The more scientific your thinking is, the fewer creationist arguments work for you. Anyone who keeps studying will eventually find that all creationist arguments fail.  But if they don't study anything then they may believe there were dinosaurs wandering around Noah's Ark as it navigated a flat earth 6,000 years ago.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:14, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Because it sounds authoritative. Because they don’t think about the physical processes girding the world or have the reading comprehension skills to get that – for the moment – Earth is not a closed system (one need only go outside during the day and look to the immediate source of that light to see why this is). The second law will come into effect for the whole planet only if by some (relative) miracle the barren and scorched cinder that was Earth survives the Sun’s midlife crisis and is either ejected into the void (I think this would take another star passing very close by) or hangs around long enough to watch the eternal fade to black. And because they hope that if the thing challenging their belief system (specifically Genesis) is questioned in a similar way it will crumble as they feel theirs is. Artificius (talk) 08:47, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Taiwan Crisis Update: Joint US-Taiwan military exercises and Lithuania pulls its envoy out of Beijing
https://www.newsweek.com/us-taiwan-coast-guards-hold-first-joint-drills-sea-report-1618274

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/lithuania-envoy-in-beijing-to-leave-china-over-taiwan-dispute/ar-AANd713

The Chinese government crying like a baby is just making me laugh. I hope other nations tell the genocidal Chinese government to fuck off. This crisis is getting interesting I will say. --USDA Certified Organic (talk) 20:09, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 'May you live in interesting times' is a worrisome curse that's never been funny. Kntai (talk) 08:51, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * there isnt actually a taiwan crisis to update. theres away to go before the current round of sabre rattling can be considered a crisis. and the lithuania thing is par for the course countries wanting diplomatic relations in the region - get too friendly with taiwan and china wont wanna play with you. i dont think lithuania taking a tough line against beijing is going any further than being taken of chinas christmas card list. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:40, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The US being suddenly unencumbered by decades-long occupations (cynically though, likely not for long) and led by a competent if mediocre executive accused by his political opponents of being weak on JY-NAH seems like an inopportune time for the PRC to press its claim on Taiwan. Not saying they won’t or can’t, just saying Biden wouldn’t have a lot of domestic political room to surrender the island and its millions of smartphone-wielding inhabitants to the PRC. That said, whomever in their military or political apparatus is considering US political factors in this matter will likely be waiting for Congress to flip if indeed it does in 2022. They might be hoping for some inevitable bugaboo (a 2023 repeat of the Ted Cruz 2013 government shutdown, perhaps) to rear its head and for it to be distracting and polarizing enough to at least stunt the American response to a mainland invasion of Taiwan. It would have to be one hell of a bugaboo though: we’ve got two carrier groups hanging out there already and according to our brass they’re not even ready yet. AMassiveGay is right, that particular crisis has not yet arrived. Artificius (talk) 07:14, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I had to parse that a little, but after figuring out "they're not even ready yet" refers to the Chinese carrier groups, yes. I'm also guessing that there would be a fast American response to any invasion of Taiwan—especially so because the pandemic's hammered in a particularly long and sharp nail: US consumerism/technology can't run without the leading semi-conductor fabs that are mainly in Taiwan, notwithstanding Intel's fabs and the few others scattered around the globe. Gamers might be sad about their lack of GPUs right now, but the truth of it is that the pandemic's hit (to name a big fish) the American auto industry hard too. Hence, I guess, the plan fund fabs on US soil.


 * Nonetheless though, wishing for flames and fire like OP—eh? Kntai (talk) 09:29, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * "Wishing for flames and fire?" Absolutely not, sir. Any hot war between nuclear powers should be avoided at all costs (hopefully the PRC never thinks our strategic ambiguity re: Taiwan will resolve into abandonment if pressed). Expecting them in the fullness of time and seeing a novel opportunity for insurgent ambition to conflict with the established order if enough people involved lose their heads (not all actors are "rational"), however? Sure. Artificius (talk) 15:18, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Ahh, I'm sorry—I think I've been unclear: by OP I was referring to USDA Cert Organic! Sorry for the confusion. I too think any hot war between nuke powers should be avoided. Kntai (talk) 04:06, 14 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I've always understood China's posturing re. Taiwan as a necessary nationalist flex for domestic purposes. I'm sure they have their share of General Ripper types who'd actually quite fancy giving it a go, but the current Chinese leaders with the real money and power? Nah. They're doing very nicely as things are, and an invasion would - at a minimum - result in crippling sanctions and almost complete isolation from the wealthiest Western markets.


 * There's an argument re. the belt & road initiative being about fostering similarly lucrative markets for Chinese goods elsewhere in the world, but that's at least a generation or two away from any kind of fruition. Who knows what the Chinese leadership will look like then, or how the domestic audience will have developed? Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 11:34, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The CCP likely won't try to do a military assault on Taiwan anytime soon. There's a lot of handwringing because both the CCP ("China") and the RoC ("Taiwan") have a claim to mainland China, while also trying to lay claim to the island of Taiwan. From what I can tell though, in practice this is mostly a bunch of angry eye exchanges in diplomacy and the CCP pressuring international organizations to not recognize the RoC. The CCP is far more likely to engage in local assimilation tactics than they are to send in the military to do that; there are tons of eyes on Taiwan right now and the CCP's international image is already pretty blemished due to their handling of COVID-19 spread at it's most generous "a disaster" and at it's least generous "actively obstructing international research and causing a delayed response", their cultural genocide of the Uyghurs and their horrendous climate policies really don't give them the wiggle room to forcibly assert their dominance over the RoC with military power without incurring the wrath of another world power (likely the US; the US finally vacated the middle east, but the populace of the US is pretty much primed with anti-Chinese sentiments, all that's needed is a casus belli at this point... which is terrifying to think about). Techpriest (talk) 12:18, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, Gay, what do you mean by "competent"? Because I don't think you mean Biden, the guy is in a nursing home thinking he's President, and we are all his nurses just playing along with him so he'll take his medication and then nap.  13:30, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * is that addressed to me? im not sure what you are responding to. i was pinged by artificius and kinda looks like is my post at glance maybe that?AMassiveGay (talk) 14:16, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Assuming that's the case, I meant competent in the sense that he's not his predecessor, who has permanently lowered the bar. "Capable of delegation," "capable of discretion," "capable of collegiality" are traits one could ascribe to just about every president in living memory which were sorely lacking in 45. Artificius (talk) 15:02, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes the latter. Delegation is important, yes, but he isn't "capable of overseeing his delegates".  They have too much rope, which is why a $1.2T infrastructure bill suddenly became $3.5T pork bill.  Gone are the days when politicians actually said "...and this is how we will pay for it".  Now it's literally just a contest of who can spend the most, something I blame Bush a bit for.  The tech bubble and 9/11 were going to happen regardless of who was President, but Bush's reckless spending sent a VERY clear message to every politician; if you create a budget surplus, it's the next guy that spends himself popular, and all three presidents since have been trying to outdo Bush in reckless spending.  I mean, the Federal Budget is basically like a pension plan where your contributions only pay for the next guy.
 * As for Trump lowering the bar, meh, Andrew Jackson was a degenerate lout whose supporters trashed the White House during his inauguration, and also a genocidal maniac. We've recovered from worse.  15:24, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah but "semi-permanently lowering the bar" doesn't have the same ring to it, and comparing Trump to Andrew Jackson... I've actually thought the same thing for the populist element they represent in politics, though not for the men themselves: Andrew Jackson was a hard, bitter cuss who nearly murdered his would-be assassin and had to be pulled off the same and allegedly rattled from all the bullets he was carrying around in him, while Trump thinks of those who serve as suckers, rubes and will forever be known as "Cadet Bone Spurs." Artificius (talk) 15:41, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It's too bad that some on the left are spouting the far-right/Putin's talking points about Biden being incompetent. It really doesn't help anything, apart from it being, like trumpism's big lie, a lie or very nearly so.UncleKrampus (talk) 15:54, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The far right saying something doesn't make it false... 17:28, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * doesnt make false, doesnt make it not dogshit either AMassiveGay (talk) 17:50, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Not sure what you are trying to say. If your argument against Position X is "well, nasty people also hold Position X", that is called the "poisoning the well fallacy". 18:11, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, well,..that's alright brother. I will hold my breath in hope that you will accept this as an honest explanation: Biden is not incompetent as far as I can tell and saying otherwise pleases right-wingers and America's enemies. That's OK if it's what you want to do, I mean what else can you accomplish?UncleKrampus (talk) 19:16, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Russia and the rest of America's rivals/enemies also insist that the US is a racist country. Ergo, the US isn't racist.  Right?  19:41, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Looking at it from the other side of the Atlantic, this administration is so much better than the last one it's hardly possible to even begin to describe the difference.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 19:51, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, but this discussion is about "is Biden competent" not "is Biden better than Trump." Easy mistake to make apparently...-Flandres (talk) 20:16, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Arguments go all over the place. The title of this section is "Taiwan Crisis Update".Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:20, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm intrigued by the idea that someone with a 36 year senatorial career, and a further eight years a Veep, would have any difficulty working the levers of power from the White House. Time will tell how effectively he uses that experience, but he's as well versed in how shit actually works in DC as any president since Papa Bush. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 14:43, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * HBC, I'm intrigued at the idea that having all that experience means that a person is immune from becoming senile. 23:35, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Old? Sure. Senile? Only if you squint really hard & ignore all the data points that say otherwise. He's always had a tendency to slip, stumble & ramble, especially when speaking off the cuff. Check out this masterclass of public speaking from 1987. He's all over the shop. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 01:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I seem to remember during campaigning for pres, or just during all the usual talk before the election is on proper, people were pushing that biden is senile line. Many of whom were in contrast to biden's decrepitude held up trump as the picture of good health, virility, and mental acuity. I never saw any convincing evidence for either position, still not seen any yet for senile ol' biden, but it sure does keep doing the rounds. I would have expected people here to be a little less credulous of such claims. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:20, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Trump's diet consists entirely of big macs and other greasy fried foods. If he is healthy, it's only because instead of a portrait in his attic, he has Dick Cheney. That or he's Lemmy Kilmister's brother.  When Trump went in for that doctor's exam, it was clear that whatever the doctor wrote, Trump overwrote, because in many ways Trump was like a dictator that simply couldn't ever let anyone know he was in any way possible weak.  Given enough time, I'm sure he would've had his Wikipedia page rewritten to include how he was too badass for the military so he couldn't get drafted.  15:07, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Some spammer is constantly trying to make new accounts
Thankfully he keeps on failing as Edit Filter keeps on blocking them. Why is he constantly trying tho? What's the point? 69 Annoy  04:43, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Spammers gonna try and spam. No point beyond that. 05:08, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It’s either a bot or a basement mushroom troll. Just ignore it. You’ll see a lot more where that came from. 09:44, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Surely the originators (the bot-creator or the troll) can find better things to do? Or is that all they can do? Anna Livia (talk) 12:53, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Almost everyone on the internet has better things they could be doing. :-) Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:48, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * So 'that is all they can do' (as there is money to be made in growing mushrooms in basements or other underground spaces). Anna Livia (talk) 12:06, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Nazi shit
It is often said that the Holocaust is one of the greatest tragedies in history. I can't say I disagree. WHY couldn't it have actually happened? Kayleekropotkin (talk) 05:11, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't quite understand what you are asking. Do you mean, "how could it have been avoided"? If so, certain world leaders should have made better decisions during the July crisis or others should have figured better Treaty of Versailles. All of the holocaust could have been avoided before and after WW1. 05:17, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * No. I am saying the Holocaust was a myth and that is unfortunate. Kayleekropotkin (talk) 05:23, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Did the Nazis exterminate homosexuals, Romani/Gypsies, and the Polish? Because if so, that proves the camps existed.  If not, these groups are also part of the conspiracy; how big can one conspiracy get?  05:40, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Interesting choice of words "WAS a myth" - past tense. So apparently it isn't a myth now - what happened to change it?Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 06:00, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

TIL
...that Neil Armstrong, or Neil A. is "Alien" backwards. I propose that some scifi writer incorporate the "Gnorts Mr Alien" into their writing. A quick googling has shown me that this is already the case... 15:54, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

The Albania article is coming along
Draft:Albania

While it is still in the draft space, I managed to add more of Albania's history. It has been a complete pain though. More to add like its government, ethnic composition and so on. --USDA Certified Organic (talk) 16:58, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you please not include any striking out in it? RatWikians with taste generally agree that strike out humour is shit and have been trying to stomp it out. It really is the lowest form of wit. Spud (talk) 23:34, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Jacob’s Ladder Deleted Scene!
Anyone here watched Jacob’s Ladder? It’s a truly mindbending film and definitely one of my favourites. Jacob’s Ladder, Se7ven, Angel Heart, the 1st season of True Detective, and Silent Hill—all perfectly compliment my sensibilities regarding ambience. Apparently the director had to cut 20mins of footage due to prerelease test audiences being “overwhelmed”. Here’s one of the deleted scenes—but first, a word of caution: do not watch this if you’re easily disturbed! Leucippus Salva veritate 23:36, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Jacob’s Ladder and Angel Heart actually have the same key plot element. They're both well made, but Jacob’s Ladder annoys me because of the chiropractic element. Bongolian (talk) 08:13, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * What I enjoyed the most about Jacob’s Ladder and Angel Heart, was the the worlds both films created, particularly their ambience i.e. the cold, dark, dirty, grainy cinematography, combined with the equally dark sound design. “But Jacob’s Ladder annoys me because of the chiropractic elements”, (not sure if you’re joking…) I wouldn’t treat that seriously, considering the film’s content; I don’t think the film’s arguing for it.  Leucippus Salva veritate 01:01, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

If the My Traitor MyPillow dude had evidence of voter fraud
Okay, my brother mentioned this. If the MyPillow dude had proof of voter fraud, that would require having access to voter data via hacking the voting machines. That would be a federal offense. If he had proof, he would go to jail for wire tapping. --USDA Certified Organic (talk) 01:27, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Irrespective of all else, his terrible porno mustache is indicative of how intellectually serious his arguments are. Honestly; plenty of people can pull off an awesome mustache (Goose Gossage, Rollie Fingers, David Axelrod, and John Stossel (yeah, I said that) all look/looked great with one), it's hard to listen to someone who can't even keep himself from looking like a wannabe Ron Jeremy. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい ) 02:45, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Not a single human being looks "great" with a beardless moustache. You either look old and/or ridiculous and/or greasy. If it is a darker colour, it looks like you have a strip of shit adorning your upper lip. Pulling off a moustache doesn't mean looking good in it, it just means not looking as ridiculous as most do. Shabi  DOO  04:18, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Mama mia! Do you want to live with Mario without a mustache then??? 17:44, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Being a baseball fan, I always thought Jim Joyce, Reggie Jackson, and Sparky Lyle (the last two names are well before my time, for sure) pulled it off. It's not common, but I've seen a few people manage it. Mike Lindell... is not one of them. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい ) 03:57, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * If any of them involved in the Voter Fraud claims had any real smoking gun proof that there was massive fraud, proof that would bring the Biden administration crashing down in flames as soon as it was revealed... and then DIDN'T reveal it immediately, then that's an offence by itself. Probably not a legal offence but a massive moral and ethical crime. If they had this genuine proof and left it until now in order to build the suspense, or like Rudi keeps claiming, keeping back killer info as "insurance", then they'd be a bunch o' stupid fuckers regardless. X Stickman (talk) 14:44, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * evidence of somekind of mass voter fraud would not mean that the mypillow chap had to do anything particularly illegal. think wikileaks or any whistleblower revealing the illegal activities of an organisation or the government. mypillow man would be more akin to a journalist receiving info supplied from a whistleblower who would be one the one with all legal risk. but as stickman points out, if they got itw why are they not sharing it? how long do they want an illegitimate government running the show? what exactly is the best time to reveal the truth if as soon as possible? or maybe they dont have anything, revealing they dont have anything ends the charade, but keeping everyone waiting for it to all fall into place for maximum effect, keeps the focus on these gobshites chipping away at any perception of legitimacy the government might have by going on and on about it being proper dodge, and keeping their base invested in trump and co, instead of letting them come to terms with that he lost and should moving on.
 * they dont even try to lure us in by teasing us with snippets of what they have, proving that they have at least something. just lots of shouting loudly (and begging not be sued for their patently false claims) AMassiveGay (talk) 18:15, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

My computer course fucking sucks
I mean, the content is fine I’m mostly keeping up. But Jesus Christ, so. We have to use this “crowdsourced learning” platform developed by one of my lecturers for the assessment. And it has this fun little thing where. In order to pass you have to create questions on the platform. So far so good right? Well, no. Because it also has to be “moderated” by 1 student and 1 teacher. Which, can take anywhere from 10 minutes to 2+ weeks to be done. AND if theyre not moderated by the due date, then u fail the assessment. And so, no matter what date u submit the fucking questions, you can still end up failing just bc it didn’t show up when a student went to “moderate” resources, or because the teacher and student had any slight disagreements when moderating it. So that’s pretty cool. Love it when I do everything for the requirements of an assessment but fail bc of shit I literally have 0 control over.

Also, despite having a whole entire disability management plan in place that’s supposed to let me easily receive extensions for assessment (seeing as it’s much harder for me to do things on time), this is the only class I’ve ever had in which the lecturers straight up looked at the disability plan and said “nah we’re not really giving you extensions or most of the other accessibility measures in the plan at all”. Which, I mean, I didn’t even know they were allowed to do that, but apparently they are. So that’s nice. Ah well, as long as I technically submit something I probably won’t fail the class, and I always do well enough in my other classes to keep my GPA high. Still just a shitload of unnecessary stress tho, all bc we gotta use some garbage platform my lecturer designed. 02:08, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Refusing to follow a disability plan is a serious issue in most places. Is there anyone you can escalate this matter to? 02:13, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Not really. There’s a lot of technical and bureaucratic shit that’d take ages to get into but the main things are this: 1) they do kind of accept some token measures (eg for some assessment I’m maybe allowed a 1-2 day extension, even tho my plan is supposed to give me 2 weeks); 2) the lecturers have pretty wide discretion in which parts to accept or not. This is designed so that if there’s smth like a group assessment, they can say “we can’t do an extension on this, but we’ll come to another arrangement”. It just so happens that this class does that for most of my assessment, bc the assessments “build on each other” or some shit. And 3) the disability management people have to sign off on the lecturers’ response to the plan for it to be finalised, so basically they’ve already looked at it and said “yep this is fine”. So it’s pretty difficult for me to work around it. I’ve applied for as many 2 day extensions as I can get, and taken whatever accessibility measures they grant me, it’s just much more limited than what I’m usually supposed to get. So yeah, can’t do much about it, just gotta work with what I have. For now I’m keeping my head above the water (esp bc my other classes this semester are much easier and more accessible). Frustrating, but u gotta do what u gotta do 02:52, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

My history with fringe thought, and where my life is going
This is going to be a very short version.

My father is a skeptic and works on maintaining the software for old weather forecast models. My mother is a New Agey alternative health one-person-company-person with beliefs shifting over time, always sure that she knows best, a shallow progressive earlier and a reactionary QAnon-type now. I grew up rather torn, and on the whole with a very difficult relationship to my mother, who often seems to view everything she finds emotionally uncomfortable as a target to lash out verbally at (while she's dead-sure that it's always others who have "ego" or other issues). My father is, instead, meek and tolerant but at the same time impossible to have a deeper emotional connection with, because such is simply never established; he usually shrinks away from everything he finds uncomfortable, unless it's a pressing practical matter.

In my teens I half-heartedly explored some New Age stuff, while my mom was training as a shaman (which she gave up later when she found it too scary, deciding to become "Christian" instead). I had the usual problem of a mystic: an inner world too large to be able to be satisfied with the varieties of conventional norms and pop-psychology, which means that the usual materialistic mold is also fundamentally too small and thin in relation to the search for meaning and more. I also had a somewhat misanthropic bent, seeing the pattern of generations throughout history endlessly repeating stupid and hurtful patterns like senseless meat robots, older generations following their programming and programming newer generations, and the valuation of most which people value appearing truly hollow, formulaic, and daft.

For a period of years, I soon after ended up sucked into a cultish online group which followed a very old recipe I didn't know enough to see past; it offered a meaningful search for a synthesis between science and mysticism, it catalogued the errors that had made everyone else fail at the task in the past, and it explained how it had a chance at succeeding. The online writings it put out added a great deal to a general education for a young person, but it was only a decade later that I could distinguish between what was and wasn't original, and begin to see the big variations in quality, and the large inconsistencies beneath the many layers of slick rhetoric and ad-hoc explanations. I had fallen for a more intellectually sophisticated version of the stuff I had rejected when it came from my mom (and from the teachings which she likes).

I've gone through a strange time, inwardly, since then. The conventional take on it must, without a doubt, include the words "breakdown" and "psychosis", even though outwardly I've simply gone through some depressed years. There's also a range of descriptions using a more mystical vocabulary that may fit to varying degrees. Awakening is not a bad word when breaking apart a false belief system. I've also, after going through a lot inwardly (a personal journey through heaven and hell is a vague but fitting description), ended up a less extremely self-questioning and self-deprecating type of person. I see how I questioned myself too much and so believed people who question themselves too little, in several areas of life; that's the case with a significant portion of people who get sucked into cults.

Now, I am very wary of some things, having learned greatly about them through personal experience. I can relate to and sympathize with people in situations similar to my own in the past. I also know that my past "type" of person has a natural enemy-"type" of person: moralizers who teach others to question themselves and who use all they have to present themselves as truthful and mature and trustworthy to those others, while at the same time, the predictable (when you know more psychology) result of what they offer is that the others who listen become or remain dependent and defer to them, and then fail to learn and grow through experience, while the manipulator confidently views all insecurities and negative emotions in those others as showing how inferior those others are. My mom and many run-of-the-mill "others have so much ego or are so immature" spiritual (and non-spiritual) people embody milder forms of that toxic narcissistic nature.

Now, I don't know what I'll end up spending the following decades doing, providing as I hope that I get out of the current rut of not getting much done. I think humanity sucks, and sometimes I'm ashamed to be human, sometimes I think there's a point to life and maybe I can even help things improve a bit in some area, and then thoughtlessness or the unwillingness to slow down and examine things more carefully seem to be among the top problems in the world. Practically, I could resume computer science studies if only I get unstuck enough to be able to get unstuck. I find most of what revolves around the money-extension of monkey business uninteresting and plainly not worth living for. The value of "utility" is more understandable, yet the big picture is that humanity isn't working much on solving the problems that matter most. So all one can do is find a game which personally matters more than other games, it seems, in seeing that all amounts to playing one or another game.

I happen to have grown up in and to find myself in Sweden. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 08:52, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Afghanistan fucked
The Taliban now has over a half of Afghanistan, and is probably more now I as I type. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Taliban_offensive SixtyNine (talk) 02:35, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It was inevitable. The only question was how much time and effort the US would spend propping up a moribund government. I'm glad we're getting out sooner rather than later. 02:59, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I hope this teaches future US presidents caution, especially as we enter a new age of international tension ("Chinese Century" and all that).-Flandres (talk) 03:07, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * America has done a shit job in invading countries lately, Vietnam, Iraq (maybe that could be a success) and now Afghanistan SixtyNine (talk) 03:33, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Iraq was definitely not a success. Unless you’re talking about the Gulf War, but even then, that war wasn’t an invasion, and the peace was horrifically mishandled by the Clinton and both Bush administrations. 07:21, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * ehh, we don't need Afghanistan anymore. We got Big Pharma and . Dutchbag (talk) 09:36, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * What exactly is that supposed to mean? 14:26, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Probably a reference to the amount of heroin ultimately sourced from the poppy growers there, other opioids have exploded in popularity among addicts since. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい ) 17:18, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * What are the chances that China attempts to fill the power vacuum left by the U.S. withdrawal? Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 05:14, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Probably the Chinese will have the same luck as Russia and the USA. Afghanistan has been the grave of empires since the nineteenth century, when the Brits recognized the futility of military conquest of the joint and instead cut deals with local nabobs. AAR, so long as its in Afghanistan I care little about what the Taliban does. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 11:33, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Sadly, it's because we began to withdraw that the Taliban began their offensive. 12:28, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * True. That still doesn't make wading into the complex web of allegiances of the heavily armed local tribes any more of our business.  The Taliban is better situated to keep them happy, but if they fail at that their power too will crumble.  The joint is basically ungovernable as a nation state, and the best that can be hoped for is an 'empire' administered through local nabobs.  But so long as what happens in Afghanistan stays in Afghanistan, I don't care. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 12:59, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I never said it did. 13:02, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * china is already afghanistan's biggest trade partner and through the belt an road initiative have a great deal of influence with neighouring countries. china can fill any void left by the us withdrawal without moving in like russia and the us. they wont have any moral qualms talking to the taliban either, not caring about the kind of governments running the trade partners countries so long as they are stable and china gets what it needs from them. they not going to get drawn into some military campaign. why would they need to? AMassiveGay (talk) 14:28, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, the Taliban and China have a Mutual friend. It's pretty easy to see Afghanistan peacefully joining this...new eastern bloc?-Flandres (talk) 15:16, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Pakistan and China have cordial relations primarily because Pakistan has proven useful to China, mainly as a geopolitical corridor to the Arabian Sea and for covering India's northwestern flank. Afghanistan would have to provide to this relationship for me to see it developig a relationship comparable to the Sino-Pakistani one. Even that relationship is volatile, considering the car bombing last month. Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 17:39, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, it wouldn't be as cordial as their relationship with Pakistan...but if nothing else they prevent a more pro-western government from coming to power. If the Kabul government stays in power they would allow the expansion of American military presence in Central Asia, which is probably not the most comforting thought.-Flandres (talk) 18:12, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Could America's military ambitions in Central Asia be in any way connected to China's economic ambitions in the same region? Containment of the 'Soviet Union 2' kinda thing.. Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 18:50, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course. Biden has pretty openly said containing China is a big part of his foreign policy.-Flandres (talk) 18:58, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * How successful do you think that effort will be? Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 21:03, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * That depends on many factors across the world. How will the US handle the troubled relations between Japan and...well, most of our other regional allies? Will the Taliban consolidate their gains or give the US another opportunity to intervene, and if they do will Washington take it? Will Russia come under a more pro-western government? Will India continue its democratic backsliding? Is the "helping democracy abroad" spin just that or is that something Biden will sincerely hold our allies to? When will North Korea implode? Will the post-Soviet regimes of central Asia ever politically liberalize? For that matter, there is a general trend of criticizing foreign adventurism among American voters, so how will that affect the government? Who will succeed Biden and what will their foreign policy be?-Flandres (talk) 21:14, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * At the end, the ordinary citizens of Afghanistan that will suffer because of this. Ladies, I hope you like wearing bags over your heads in the middle of the summer! SixtyNine (talk) 23:20, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure the Taliban is winning because the Afghan people hate the US-imposed government and desire a return to Taliban theocracy. I say, if the Afghan people want the Taliban, then they should have it. 23:49, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * How do you think a militarized theocracy will contribute to the theatre of international politics, effect the livelihood of its citizens, and influence the stability of the region? Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 01:27, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Just one more North Korea style backward hellhole the international community doesn't really care about. There are more of those than the "end of history/better angels of our nature" type cretins would like to admit anyway...-Flandres (talk) 01:42, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Nah, they hate the Taliban too. They're Like us that way. 01:46, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I feel sorry for all the civilians who live in Afghanistan. Big Sad. I don't think everyone in Afghanistan likes the Tailban. 69  Annoy  03:01, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

What do you think the qualitative differences between the Afghan dystopia and the North Korean dystopia would be? Also, do you think that the attention of the international community would be attracted by these states developing and brandishing nuclear weapons, as North Korea has already done? Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 05:40, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the DPRK and the Taliban have reached a sort of singularity of awfulness. There is no real purpose in trying to determine which is worse. As for the second point...how on earth would the Taliban get a nuke?-Flandres (talk) 15:11, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks like Kabul is gonna go down by the end of the month. US embassy staff are already shredding documents. 01:26, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * the taliban would have to pinch one from pakistan. i dont think the taliban would even think they needed a nuke. not as a deterrant of any kind. they've only just booted the US out out its domain without it. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:48, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The government has fallen! The president has just fled the country. The Islamic Republic of Afghanistan is no more. Now it is the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan also known as the Taliban. 69  Annoy  23:31, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

I saw a picture of two people falling off a plane to their deaths. Things have come full circle, IMHO. I remember watching as people jumped from the two towers to their deaths to avoid being burned to death, which was part of an event that led to the Afghan war. Now the people of Afghanistan are doing the same, to avoid being burnt to death by the Taliban... 20:33, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

The Moral Argument
Predictably, the Right-wing and interventionist Left are freaking out about Afghanistan. I think they are correct, that the US has a commitment to evacuating those Afghani's who contributed to the military or diplomatic missions, and are in danger from the Taliban. Besides the disgusting Santa Monica Fascist, pretty much everyone seems to recognize the moral argument for supporting mass resettlement. But I'm reading so many other pieces about how a minor American military presence should have been maintained, without understanding that since 2009, basically everyone knew the Taliban would regain power as soon as America left. The speed of their takeover is only more terrifying by how bloodless it has been, only if you didn't understand that this also was years in the making. More and more it just seems like Afghanistan had a perfect amount of circumstances that was never going to end without constant American presence. And honestly, who actually wanted that?-RipCityLiberal (talk) 20:06, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * it need not have been this way. mismanagement of the whole thing from the start, and a denial of reality prevented rectifying errors. it would not have required a constant american presence. it need only have required in stamping out the corruption in the government it installed. instead the us abandons the afghanis to a dreadful fate under the taliban. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:43, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * i hear plenty of about democracy here, condemnations of one tyrannical regime or another. but when it came to it, in afghanistan,, we wash our hands of it. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:45, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Because it's been twenty years. The war is being fought be people born after it started.  At some point you have to admit that you can't win.  22:34, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The Taliban sued for peace twice, once in 2001 when they were getting routed, and again in 2011 after the surge, both times the President told them to kick rocks. Afghanistan was always a military operation, never focused on building institutions, which is why the few in place collapsed so spectacularly.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:41, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, but all of this no doubt made some contractors very wealthy! That's the American way!-Flandres (talk) 23:48, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Ran across this little gem from five years ago. "If only we can begin extracting money from their very Earth, they shall know Democracy!" Artificius (talk) 01:04, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Donald Trump wanted desperately to withdraw completely from Afghanistan. The pros at State and Defense told him it couldn't be done, not yet, not now.  He nevertheless made a plan, which Joe Biden followed through on and got it done.  Both presidents deserve the credit and the blame.  Truth be told, there was no 'good' time to do this, but it was necessary nonetheless.  The only real surprise is the way the Afghan official army, armed and trained by American taxpayers at a cost of billions, evaporated.  And even that was not much of a surprise.   Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 01:23, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

When will I become a Sysop?
According to RationalWiki:Sysops:

Sysops (short for "system operators", often called "admins") are the gods of most wikis; however, on RationalWiki, pretty much anyone who isn't an obvious vandal and doesn't immediately LANCB is made a sysop, usually whenever someone notices the newbie. This is because of a pissing contest between π and Stabby the Misanthrope back in early 2009. (My emphasis)

When will I get to become sysop? Its really annoying having little power.SixtyNine (talk) 00:47, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Mostly it'll happen when someone notices you making a few decent contributions to the pages. Sometimes it'll be a few days, sometimes a month or so...  00:55, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Can I have it now please . I really want to become a sysop. Please, please, please??? SixtyNine (talk) 01:18, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Why? It's not like it grants you any special authority. 01:39, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Sysops allow people to block people, delete pages, protect pages. They allowed to a lot of different stuff SixtyNine (talk) 02:09, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Try not plagiarizing for starters. 02:25, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm really sorry! Please I'm really sorry. SixtyNine (talk) 02:34, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You know, most users aren't this...desperate. I don't think it helps your case. It's better to just contribute more and wait for someone else to give you rights spontaneously.-Flandres (talk) 02:39, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Why would you want such responsibility? I've had it for years now and it's just contributed to my misery. 02:45, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * If you don't like being sysops then don't be one. I just to contribute more to this wiki and RW says that everyone gets to become a sysop and I want to know why I am being left out. SixtyNine (talk) 02:50, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Snarky comments (the bad kind) like: "If you don't like being sysops then don't be one" do not endear yourself to users here. The fact that you desperately want it likely makes other users (including myself) weary of giving it to you. You rarely get to use any of the tools you let as a sys-op here (unlike on other wikis) except joke blocks or unblocking yourself from stupid blocks. You would have to make some actual constructive contributions here before I (and most other users here) would give you sys-op. I do not understand why you cannot just make some useful edits instead of begging for fairly useless tools. Shabi  DOO  03:17, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't understand how I'm being snarky, its just common sense and was just giving good advice. If being a sysop makes you miserable, then don't become a sysop. Its pretty simple. And I don't care if I rarely use the sy-op tools, I still want to be one.  69  Annoy  03:28, 13 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Ok, you know how there's this girl you like, and the more you ask her out the less interested she is in dating you? 03:31, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Fine, forget about it everybody. Let EVERYBODY get to bully me while I am powerless to stop. 69  Annoy  03:46, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You could...SixtyNine...consider listening to what multiple users are saying instead of getting defensive and playing the victim persecution schtick. Shabi  DOO  04:00, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I am. Don't worry about it. I'm just letting off steam. 69  Annoy  04:04, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Were I you 69, I would consider getting a name-change operation. I know a cheap tech that would do it for you for a fair price. Probably you're doing better than if you had called yourself "buttmunch" or "nozzlegobbler" but not really all that much better. UncleKrampus (talk) 03:14, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Um... Ok but I'm fine. Thanks 69  Annoy  02:23, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

How can you both make decent pillows while being into conspiracy theories?
Like the Mypillow guy? 2607:FB90:A875:6C77:76AA:B10A:11BC:E52A (talk) 23:48, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The same way Ben Carson can be a former neurosurgeon while also thinking that the Biblical Joseph built the Pyramids to store grain. Being good at certain things doesn't mean you can't be a dipshit when it comes to other topics. 00:33, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Decent pillows — I don't think so. They've been called lumpy. My Pillow was first called out by the Better Business Bureau for poor business practices starting in 2018. The State of California sued him for false advertising (making false scientific claims about the pillows) — and basically won their suit (My Pillow settled and agreed to pay up). Bongolian (talk) 02:56, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I have heard a lot of bad reviews of the quality of MyPillow. Mainly being lumpy and rock hard. --USDA Certified Organic (talk) 01:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

What fallacy is this (another one of these...)
Someone (A) presents a set of very statistically significant findings to someone else (B). B handwaves it away by saying "he clearly is just trying different operations on things until something sticks." What fallacy is that? &#39;&#39;NiciesMan&#39;&#39; (talk) 22:44, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * That's so.ewhat vague and confusing. Could you give an example and elaborate a little? Shabi DOO  22:47, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Sounds as if (B) is accusing (A) of Texas_sharpshooter_fallacy? Scream!! (talk) 23:09, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * So we’re playing that game again, huh? I spy with—not— my third eye … ditto Scream!! Leucippus Salva veritate 23:52, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, person B may be accusing person A of one of numerous things. The data itself may be gathered incorrectly, the study is done improperly, the study is drawing the wrong conclusions, etc. CorSock (talk) 01:55, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Reminds me of what a Trumpist might say when confronted with evidence Trump committed crimes: "they will keep investigating accusations until something sticks." It seems to suggest he is guilty of something. Really not much of a fallacy, more like a concession of guilt.UncleKrampus (talk) 03:43, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

It is not a fallacy per sey. The person involved may be doing exactly what they have accused them of doing. Or they may not. We need more information about what is being presented. As in a previous one of these you really need to present the initial data and circumstances rather than a simplified description. Also "being wrong" is not a named fallacy.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 10:50, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Images
Hello, I am rewriting the page on Lebensraum due to it's criminal shortness, but an image I would like to put up is way to large, how can I make it smaller, and move it to the right side? An Advocate (talk) 01:03, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Essentially, follow the code here: Example.jpg (minus the nowiki tags, of course). That should work. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい ) 02:48, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm leaving. Bye
I am leaving soon. Thank you RW for brighten my life for the last several 2 month! Thanks 69  Annoy  02:28, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

IPCC climate report
Well, most of us are probably aware of its contents at this point. Pretty incontestable blackpill fuel, amirite? Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 03:32, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Is it good news or bad news? 69  Annoy  04:00, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Considering how the best case scenario is almost impossible due to entrenched corporatocracy, it couldn't get much worse. Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 04:04, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * So that good news? I hope... I really want to visit the Pacific island nations one day and I will have to go there soon before its too late. 69  Annoy  04:15, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The environmentalist movement has always been an associated bunch of commies and subversives, only it turned they accidentally latched onto something with merit. The problem is they sabotage real solutions because their goal has never really been about the environment so much as it has been about weakening the West.  That's why you don't see environmentalist pushing for an overhaul of the electric grid to incorporate UHVTL or the addition of numerous Thorium or other Gen IV reactors.  I mean, you don't have to be a Thorium fanboi, but if you are so anti-nuke you wouldn't consider upgrading our current Gen II's with Gen III's and IV's, you don't actually care about the environment.  06:28, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * At no point during that paragraph did I have the slightest clue what you were going to say next. Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 06:34, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Long story short, I have a vendetta against any "environmentalist" that's anti-infrastructure. UHVTL effectively eliminates all the problems with renewables, yet you never seem to see them pushing for it.  As for nuclear, the Gen III+'s and IV's don't have the potential to produce only electricity, they could also effectively produce hydrogen for nearly free.  What this means is that fossil fuels could be completely eliminated from many non-energy uses such as fertilizer production.  With enough spare hydrogen and electricity, we could use nuclear power plants to synthesize fossil fuels from hydrogen and captured carbon, and then pump them back underground where they belong.  07:01, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It sounds like you are assuming malice where the situation is adequately explained by ignorance. The key problem at the heart of environmentalism has always been education. We need more quality educationalists spreading comparisons and ideas. 92.233.196.50 (talk) 11:58, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * There was also one bright spot in the report. A lot can be done quickly and relatively cheaply (if there's a will) to greatly reduce methane emissions quickly. This involves institutional (government and corporate) change, not changes by individuals: changing technology that reduces emissions from oil & gas production, manure ponds at farms, and landfill emissions. This does not substitute for other needed changes to human behavior, but it does buy some time for making more difficult changes. Another potential bright spot is that Chinese scientists had some key contributions to the report and there are scientists among China's top level of leadership, so there's some likelihood that China will take the report seriously. China's problem (as in other countries) is that their goals currently do not match their behavior. In China's case, seems to be a mismatch between top-level policy and provincial-level approvals of new coal mines and steel plants. Bongolian (talk) 20:08, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Stupid question re: farms and methane. Can you feed bean-o to cows?
 * From what I understand, various plant material includes raffinose, a trisaccharide made up of galactose, fructose and glucose. Mammals lack the ability to digest this, but bacteria can, which is why beans and cabbage give you gas.  Bean-o contains the enzymes which break it down into the monosaccharides that can be readily absorbed by your digestive tract, which prevents gas as well as increased the calories consumed.  This would mean, for cows, they produce less methane and get fatter quicker.  Right?  20:14, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Creationist argument "Were you there" for denying evolution and the age of the Earth
Going with the "were you there" logic, I can say this- I have never been to Bulgaria or Italy, does that mean that neither country exist? It is the same logic is it not? --USDA Certified Organic (talk) 01:48, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It pretty similar to my refutation "How do you know Hell exist? Were you there?" 69  Annoy  02:27, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The "were you there" argument is monumentally stupid. If it were valid it could be used to dismiss any historical or current event. The recent Taliban takeover of Afghanistan, The Second World War, Woodstock. It's so absurd it barely needs responding to.
 * However there are usually two parts to the question: "How do you know? Were you there?" The first question is really quite sensible and logical, but the follow up implies that the only way to answer the first one is via direct personal involvement.  Nuttyness.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 10:29, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem with the historical argument thingy is that the only way one knows-- these days-- that said Second World War-- or the First World Wat, or the Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire, or the like ever happened is because we have the historical records.
 * And to the hardcore creationist, there's a definite and unarguable historical record for his beliefs-- the Old Testament. And you're not going to be able to convince him otherwise.  Kencolt (talk) 03:39, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * If some Christian (or anyone else) refuses to consider additional evidence then they have a problem. But even that would not justify the "How do you know, were you there?" stupidity.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:24, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Rollback
I accidentally rollbacked, what should I do? Bhp99 (talk) 11:09, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * If you mean your edit to 'Webshites' then you appear to have corrected it already. So: nothing more. Scream!! (talk) 11:29, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Everyone's fatfingered the rollback button at some point in their life. Don't Panic. Everyone makes mistakes every once in a while. Techpriest (talk) 11:32, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Terrible gerrymandered map from Colorado.
This is only a preliminary it is still look horribly gerrymandered

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/redistricting-2022-maps/colorado/preliminary/

The partisan breakdown of Colorado's eight seats is 4 Dem seats, 3 Rep and 1 competitive. But still you can see the panhandles of the 1st district and 6th district.

I do not hope this map will pass, but I bet it will. 69 Annoy  01:51, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Why? 03:38, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Because I believe that districts should be as packed as possible and not have little tentacles that grab other communities. 69  Annoy  05:47, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * So you believe that compact districts are more important. That's fair, I would guess that the districts are drawn this way to create a minority/majority district, or to connect groups with similar cultural identity. Gerrymandering itself isn't the problem, it's when it's used specifically disadvantage a group by either packing enough of them in one district that their vote is wasted, or crack the group into smaller pieces that will never have a majority.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 15:31, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * And why is that? 15:42, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It is absolutely outrageous that gerrymandering happens at all and that Americans dont care enough to do anything about it. One party rigging an election is supposed to be a description of a government of a failed state. Shabi  DOO  22:50, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The whole point of the HoR is that people in a local area can have a local representative represent them in the HoR. That means the local district must have the same interests and culture so the congressmen and congresswomen can represent their district fairly. But gerrymandering goal isn't to represent the people. It is to take control from the voters not the other way around. It removes government accountability. 69  Annoy  01:37, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * And what if the district was already gerrymandered? Would adjusting the districting not still be gerrymandering? If so, would it be justified? 01:49, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Well yeah of course its justified. They already done it in Florida, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina. 69  Annoy  02:12, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * But would it still be gerrymandering? I asked both questions in that order for a reason. 02:15, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? It not gerrymandering. For example do you think New York 10th is gerrymandered or not? Do you think you could justify its shape? Do you believe that the shape should be altered? Is THAT gerrymandering? New York US Congressional District 10 (since 2013).tif 69 Annoy  02:21, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Calm down. I'm just pointing out that one question is predicated on the answer to another question. "If so, why" is meant to convey that one question is predicated on the answer to another question. For example, if I asked "do you like raspberry jam?" and then followed it with "if so, why?" or "if not, why not?", the second question would be meant to get you to explain your reasoning behind whether or not you liked raspberry jam. Thusly, to answer only one question sort of defeats the point of asking inter-connected questions. 20:46, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, to be clear: Gerrymandering is a process of drawing districts. The problem is drawing districts in ways that weaken groups political power intentionally. Packing and Cracking are the main issues. You pack a group of voters into one congressional district, that guarantees one party will win, but waste most of the votes. Traditionally this is more common to guarantee Black representation, like SC 6th. Cracking is considerably worse, because it tends to specifically weakens group that need representation. Texas is great example of this. San Antonio is a pretty liberal city, probably should have 3 districts, 2 strong democrat and 1 toss-up. Instead San Antonio is cracked in to 5. (Districts 35, 20, 21, 28 and 23) Dallas/Fort Worth is another area that just has wildly drawn districts.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:35, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

John Birch Society's opinion on the Lincoln Project
Pedophilia-ridden "Lincoln Project" warns of conservative Republicans putting children in danger. 

And their excessive pleading of a lost cause for a past era of supposed moderate Republicanism regurgitated from the very Aiken/Stassen 1940s-era crap does not fool me. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 02:17, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, here we go again... 69  Annoy  02:29, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Care to specify, pal? UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 02:31, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Someone is going to say "Hey, that is a Bad source" you will be like "No!" there is going to be back and forth flame war, its going to the ATIM page and it will end in you being banned 69  Annoy  02:33, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * From which reliable source should I cite from then? LT? UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 02:38, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Plus, the New American is super bias anyway 69  Annoy  02:39, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Peer-reviewed papers from respectable journals are good to start 69  Annoy  02:40, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yah, The New American is way too biased towards the truth. My, how awful. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 02:40, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It is super partisan towards conservatives. They will spin the truth for political purposes. 69  Annoy  02:45, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Let's drill it in your thick skull: YOUR SOURCE IS SHIT AGAIN, USHISTORYANALYZER . 02:55, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Everybody lets all calm down. Here I have a photo of a quokka for ya. Look how cute it is!!! <3 [[File:Quokka at rottnest (cropped).jpg]] 69  Annoy  02:57, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Alas, USHistoryAnalyzer, if you are reading this, I don't wanna say I told you so, but I told you so. 69  Annoy  03:03, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * What does it mean when someone is vandal binned?? Does that mean they are permablocked?? 69  Annoy  03:10, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Edit rate is limited to once per 30 minutes. It's not a blocked. Any sysop can parole it but the binning itself is indef. Guy was vandal binned a few times now, for low quality Saloon Bar posts, shitstirring, etc. I mean Hastur can try to parole it, then I'll just push for an ATIM case. 03:17, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I see USHA is dropping the pretenses of intellectualism and going straight to the conspiracy theorists. I'd like to contrast this with myself, a man who, though he prefers left wing media, knows that most of you have little interests in such media. Also I get my news and op-eds from around 20-30 different outlets, including centrist and rightwing outlets. 03:35, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I will grab the popcorn 🍿🍿🍿🍿 69  Annoy  03:37, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You should get your news from all sorts of different media not just one or two. I always check the sources as well especially in the case of science news. I'm looking at you, Daily Mail! 69  Annoy  03:44, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The John Birch Society was even shat on in the old days by the National Review (the NR have a fun article on that). There was a time when they were the true loony bin kooks of the right, but in these days of Angry Baby and QAnon I guess they are "Republican mainstream", simply because the Republican party has gone insane. That being said, I really don't care at this point about internal drama among conservative blowhard talking heads, eg Birch bitching about the Lincoln Project who made an ad complaining about the fuck-basic-hygiene-to-own-the-libs policies of Ron "the Trump ass-kisser" DeathSantis. The far-right crowd these days leans towards the older, not so healthy demographic that is exactly whom the virus can hurt the most, so if they want to play Russian roulette over COVID-19 and do the usual conservative bitch and moan about face masks and vaccines, fine. It's your health, whatever. I'm vaccinated, I don't care, and "fuck your feelings", too. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 15:00, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * On a slightly different tangent, that quokka is cute. Certainly cuter than a capybara, which has been the cute distraction critter for a while now over at We Hunted the Mammoth.  (I can't get into the capybara.  It looks too much like a fuzzy quadruped brick to me.) Kencolt (talk) 04:13, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Quokkas are also fun to say. I must've said Quokka hundreds of times now in a row. 69  Annoy  04:21, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Snopes had to check if quokkas are real because people just thought they were too cute to be real! https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/quokka-happiest-animal/ 69  Annoy  04:32, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I have been #blessed enough to see real life quokkas in the wild, and I can confirm: those mfs cute. 12:58, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I hope everyone here is aware of the numbat. 82.46.167.158 (talk) 17:46, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Because I made the Lincoln Project page I feel the need to comment: Who the fuck cares about JBS? Them dudes are literal psychos.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:40, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

The Babylon Bee actually does a sort of funny bit (mostly).
Kinda, sorta... Kencolt (talk) 04:13, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Sort of. I can kind of see a critique of Twitter's horrible moderation efforts and its spotty moderation. Maybe I'm biased, though, but I do read a little bit of "why did they ban Trump and not a Taliban leader and a Chinese Communist Party leader, this is not fair for Trump" rather than a "Twitter is selective in its enforcement and that's bad.", but it doesn't quite go enough there. So, maybe the joke works in this case. They kinda were pushing their schtick with the whole "then allowed back on after disguising himself as a spokesperson for the Chinese Communist Party" part; it detracts from their joke I think. Finally the part of "it would be wrong of us to silence someone of a different culture" is also pretty cringe too, basically reads as "woke people tolerate taliban as a "different culture". P.S. don't use pipe (|) for links, just add a simple space after the link.  04:14, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Nothing the Babylon Bee makes is funny. They always doing it to support their conservative views. 69  Annoy  04:35, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Ehhh, once in a blue moon I guess their comedy doesn't make my eyes roll, but their content is rather painful to sit through. 05:11, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Nah, this Babylon Bee video pretty much sums up the state of the world today. Plus it's kind of bizarre to see people advocate exactly what the Klan used to... 05:20, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Babylon Bee might've had a point if they didn't already craft 78% of their entire comedy act around "the intolerant libbers". This video is the same joke. 05:23, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm getting a 404 message for the original link. I guess they removed the article. Spud (talk) 12:41, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * If you can't view, the joke is that the Taliban can use twitter but Trump can't. 13:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The article is there, but the Kencolt piped the message and that broke the link. I edited their message so the link is easier to follow. 14:40, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I've read it now. Meh. Spud (talk) 05:33, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I find that the less you are able to talk about something, the funnier the topic is. There's several reasons for this.  First, because no one else is talking about it, that leaves all the material for just a few people.  Second, because the longer an idea goes unchallenged, the more bullshit that can pile up, making for more material for comedy.
 * If only the Babylon Bee had some Jewish writers, they would be hilarious. 14:59, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * About what, though? I feel everyone has at least talked about or endlessly saw the complaints about getting.... Ratio'd on Twitter dot com? Comments are... flagged as running amuck of fact checkers? How moderators are biased/ power hungry? It's especially prevalent among people that have flimsy grip on exactly why this happens (right wingers complain a lot more, or I'm just not in circles where anyone to the left of them complains about censorship). We have this recurring complaint in the wiki even. I.e., everyone is talking about not being able to talk about things. This is also challenged all the time too? In the end, Babylon Bee has complete surface level comedy, something grade school people can come up with while daydreaming for five minutes in class. If you want additional context for this content, remember they put an article out saying "it's okay to disagree with gay people" and having people react like demons in response to an apparently mild saying (never mind it's still homophobic, just civil homophobia, and that's still bad!) 15:06, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, was talking about any topic people avoid. E.g., you couldn't make fun of Christianity for millenia, the Church built up all these bizarre practices that went unchallenged, and once people were allowed to make fun of it, those practices were so out of touch with reality that it became a goldmine for comedy.  Mormons used to murder people for criticizing it, so much BS built up that now the whole thing is so hilarious that literally half of all Mormons simply leave the faith. 16:16, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Considering Babylon Bee's prior content, I really think it's just a case of conservatives not really being able to handle being dogpiled over and over. Babylon Bee is not particularly clever. 22:11, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll give them credit for trying at least, political humor gets a little dull when it's always slanted in one direction (for my money, Lewis Black is the best at such humor today and this by Sam Kinison is the apotheosis of it; also distinctly not a liberal/conservative point of view). If for no other reason than a little variety, I'll take it. And I can admit to having a laugh at this specific article, the other one recently that landed, if imperfectly due to the clunky writing, was this comment on college kids claiming to be socialists. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい ) 02:24, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, no offense, but this is the same crap that gotten my eyeballs rolling hard again. There's a stupid headline. The content is even stupider "socialism bad" cringe (like they confuse ML communism with.... every other kind of socialism; when you write jokes, get your facts straight first). They had to mock trans people with the cartoonish self-referential "he/him" and "did you assume my gender" remarks? Couldn't resist, could they? These three articles that have been shared to me ALL follow the same trite Xerox script Goomba dung that I've chronicled in their article. I'm sorry, I scoffed hard, and I scoffed so hard I need a cough drop now. 05:00, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This article, with its underlying subtle-as-a-sledgehammer suggestion that unvaccinated people are being brandished like the Jews and the Star of David, however, remains the worst of the Babylon Bee. And look at the writing. It's completely juvenile. The Babylon Bee. Their content is gutter-bottom. Sometimes utterly vile like this one. Capable of inflicting pain. I've had funnier moments trying to fit contact lenses with raw garlic residue on my fingers.
 * Anyhow, they're not trying at all. They really aren't. They're on the same level as cheap shitty right-wing memes that depict women screaming or show OCASIO-CORTEZ DUMB!! or show trans people as confused easily-set off losers with n number of genders 05:16, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It only worked at all because of the silliness that was going on during the mass protests in Cuba, where the DSA couldn't just shut their mouths and instead gave themselves some totally unnecessary self-inflicted wounds. The gender stuff is part of what I referred to as the clunky writing, but I also can't freak out over one random line; I wish people would see more humor in their immutable traits, not less. And they're probably trying, they just aren't usually any good. Sometimes talentless people really are just talentless, no matter how much they work at it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい ) 17:26, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll admit that when I looked at "the Bee" a couple days ago, given the recent dumbfuckery at Spirit Airlines, their article referencing this gave me a tiny chuckle. Of course, they had to throw in an anti-mask "joke" at the end because it's required by Conservative Media Stereotype Law. That's kind of the problem for people of a certain ilk: "conservative" identity tropes are really kind of tired these days, and are so generic. They almost sound as if they are conjured up by a Marketing Department in The Big City, that feeds bulleted lists of Things That Must Be Included to conservative writers, and to have them repeat these tropes forever and ever. You almost picture a poor old Babylon Bee worker being hounded by a type pouring over his or her submissions and saying, um, yeah, your quota for socialism jokes is low, um, I'm gonna need you to, insert a joke on socialism at the bottom of your article? Because, mmm, yeah, it would be great if you did that. At any rate, these tropes are designed primarily for angry white old farts to yell over AM radio so other angry white old farts can get ANGRY, so it just doesn't work in the sort of attempts at The Onion style satire the Bee is trying to do. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 00:02, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This is all right besides the mask thing. Though I could substitute something similar like "parched Americans refuse water once they realized it a gift from Rick Snyder [because of the Flint water crisis]." Is my attempt funny? Idk. 02:33, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

As for better Babylon Bee articles, this one's a cute, innocent one Perfectly Good Cookie Dough Ruined By Putting It In Oven. 02:33, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Evolutionist challenge
I challenge all evolutionist to give evidence that:

1. Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves.

2. Planets and stars formed from space dust.

3. Matter created life by itself.

4. Early life-forms learned to reproduce themselves.

5. Major changes occurred between these diverse life forms (i.e., fish changed to amphibians, amphibians changed to reptiles, and reptiles changed to birds or mammals). ADefenceOfChristianity (talk) 04:23, 19 August 2021 (UTC)


 * What? 04:21, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I want to show that evolution is nothing more than a religion! ADefenceOfChristianity (talk) 04:23, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * If you can't even define evolution correctly then you're not worth engaging. 04:27, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * If you can't show any evidence then it means that I am right! &#91;&#91;User:ADefenceOfChristianity&#124;✝&#93;&#93; (&#91;&#91;User talk:ADefenceOfChristianity&#124;God Loves You!&#93;) (talk) 04:29, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Good for you. 04:29, 19 August 2021 (UTC)


 * You don't even attempt to show me. This shows the superiority of Christianity! 04:39, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I showed your mom my cock last night. 06:34, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Absolutely none of this, true or false, has any bearing on the validity of evolutionary theory. "Abiogenesis" != "Evolution".  The "Alien Seed" theory, that life originated on Earth as a prank by another alien civilization, would have no bearing as to whether that initial life continued to evolve.  19:52, 19 August 2021 (UTC)


 * How? All of what written above involves random chance. As such, evolution. 22:11, 19 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I know it's wrong to engage the trolls, but here you go:


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent
 * https://courses.lumenlearning.com/astronomy/chapter/evidence-that-planets-form-around-other-stars/
 * As for time and space "We don't know" is a valid answer and not something to be afraid of.
 * So there you go - you are wrong - and you are welcome.
 * Bit sad you aren't clever enough to find the real basic stuff yourself, but hey - it's a bell curve and someone has to be at the left and side of it. Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 22:22, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you may think that this is proof of God's creation? It just near impossible that all of this was created at pure chance! It like throwing car parts down a hill and it creates a car. And unlike you, I don't go into insults when I don't have any rebuttal. God has given me the skills to debate respectfully.
 * No. Such things are clearly the work of the elder ones, who will soon wake and consume us all. C''re nilgh'ri mg'lloig geb. 23:12, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You seem to lack familiarity with the concept of natural selection. The first thing you should understand is that evolution is not the same as abiogenesis, nor is it the same as random chance, as you seem to suggest above.  It's also a bit dishonest not to respond to the substantial content of the resources provided by Aloysius, but only to the accompanying insult. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒   talk  02:02, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, so nothing created something and the Earth was randomly created by space dust and then some chemicals in the ocean randomly created life and then the chemical soup created fish and the fish turned into amphibians and the amphibians turned into reptiles and the reptiles turned into mammmals and suddenly humans appeared. Yeah, that sounds plausible doesn't it? Yeah I use to be a evolutionist then I read the Bible and did the figures: Bibilical creation wins!
 * It is unclear who you are responding to. Furthermore, your depiction of evolution still conflates it with other concepts, and is besides that overly simplistic, to the point of serious inaccuracy.  For instance, the chemical soup created fish is not an accurate portrayal of what is described by evolution.  I recommend you read an introductory text on evolution or biology, as a more extensive background in the subject matter would do much more for you than anything you are likely to find on the RW saloon bar.
 * Evolution by natural selection is effectively a two step process. The first step involves (random) genetic mutation of existing organisms in a population.  Such mutations cause changes in phenotype, and the mechanisms underlying the relationship between genotype and phenotype are well established.  The second step, natural selection, involves the environment in which the population is situated exerting pressure on individual organisms.  Organisms with different phenotypes will fare better or worse under such pressure; certain traits make it more or less difficult to obtain adequate nutrition, for instance.  Those organisms whose traits are most conducive to survival and reproduction tend to have more offspring, resulting in increasing overrepresentation of their genes in successive generations.  This is a basic, oversimplified description of what the theory says.  Frankly, the notion that certain traits improve an organism's ability to survive and reproduce more than others within a given environment, and that such advantageous traits would tend to become more prominent over time, is highly plausible.
 * Evolution does not seek to describe the origin of life; it describes how existing populations change over time. Evolution by natural selection has an element of randomness, but is not identical to randomness.  Evolution by natural selection is not the only form of evolution.  Evolution is more general; for instance, if a population suddenly and precipitously declines, leaving only a few individuals of a species alive, the bottleneck can produce notable changes in the population genetics, producing a novel mixture of genotypes and phenotypes.  I do not understand the connection you see with stars and planets or the origin of the universe.  I again encourage you to read about these things in greater detail. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒   talk  03:34, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * No, you need to have the origin of life to come through natural causes to have evolution. If God created life there is no need for evolution. Abiogenesis is like a car parts rolling down a hill and a car suddenly being built.
 * And I don't deny that microevolution has occurred. But macroevolution has never been observed. Creatures come through their own kind. Its common sense. No creature has ever been observed that has given birth to another kind.

Church of RationalWiki
I have created a new Church of RationalWiki! Please join for the fun! https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/User:ADefenceOfChristianity/ChurchOfRationalWiki
 * This is silly. 03:38, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Who the fuck put fucking notes here?
I'm doing this so that there isn't the horrible error message at the end of the page. I'd make it a sub-secton of wherever it is the tosser put the notes. But I can't see where it is. I hope it's not something in someone's fucking sig. Spud (talk) 07:42, 20 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Click the up arrow next to the notes. They’ll take you to where the notes originated from. I’m on my phone. 07:56, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I moved the notes section. LongStylus (talk) 08:06, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you both. Spud (talk) 08:10, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Detransition article
I'm writing an article on detransition, can anyone help me? It's at Draft:Detransition. Bhp99 (talk) 15:49, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Advice; Reddit is generally not considered a valid source. 16:04, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 18:39, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This wiki would be better off with less reddit zoology altogether. But if we have to do it (and there are certainly instances where we do), don't rely on original research.  I'm sure that there are plenty of journalists and scholars who have analyzed this issue that you can cite-Hastur! (talk)  20:18, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

US withdraw from Afghanistan- Did people expect the Afghan government to be stable?
People blaming Biden for the collapse of the Afghan government is wrongfully placed blame. After 20 years of fighting a losing battle, the Afghan government would not be stable in any way. Even if we stay, the local government would have collapsed anyways and would have fallen under de facto control of the Taliban.

The US government was merely sending soldiers to die for an unwinnable war. The cost of the war was astronomical too. Might as well lite hundreds of billions of dollars on fire for the same price. --Get Vaccinated (talk) 01:49, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a bipartisan shitshow situation in many ways, solved in a surprisingly bipartisian-ish manner... though the root cause traces back to fantasies from a certain segment of the right that now are obsolete. Dubya (courtesy of his neocon advisors) started the war courtesy of 9/11-fueled anger, and Obama continued it (even missing an opportunity politically to wrap things up when Osama Bin Laden was killed). Angry Baby's team actually started the withdrawal process and "Mr. Trans Am"'s team finished it, and I think they both are more in the right than the previous two. I personally have no problem with getting out of this unwinnable war (no matter how much politicians and talking heads are engaging in the spin cycle right now), and all polls I see right now suggest pretty strong support for withdrawal that actually is more bipartisan than I expected. People like Liz Cheney are the ones you have to laugh at right now, her spin cycle is going into "ludicrous speed", as she's trying to blame Biden for a shitshow heavily created by her Dick dad, along with other players like Donald Rumsfeld. American exceptionalism fueled hubris and the laughable notion that you can convert a country by guns and bombs alone (did Vietnam teach us anything?) have failed once again, the good news is I think most Americans on all sides are tired of such nonsense for now. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 02:11, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Looking backward is pointless. We should be looking forward. Suppose, for example, the Taliban decides to bomb Times Square with a dirty nuke this Sept. 11 to commemorate 9/11 and celebrate their victory over a superpower. What should we do then? Invade Iraq? Kick Taliban butt in Afghanistan? And how much faith would you have in the boyz in the Pentagon or IC for whatever the hell they recommend? Dutchbag (talk) 07:29, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The US should stop being a belligerent or support any belligerents in the Middle East entirely. Then the US would be safe from further attacks, including Taliban bombings. LongStylus (talk) 07:59, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Did people expect the afghan government to be stable? i think that should have been a reasonable expectation as a return for the billions of dollars the us put it into it or that troops many more billions trained might be actually know how to fire a gun or actually exist. you cant blame biden for all of that. you cant blame biden for the bullshit doha agreement. you can blame biden for the arbitrary deadline for the withdrawal of us troops and the ignoring of any conditions for that withdrawal. thats why the capitulation of the government was rapid and the withdrawal has been so chaotic.

the taliban are apparently going door to door looking for people who had worked for the government and allied forces - thousands of whom are stranded in kabul. thats on biden. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:37, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Any plan would have resulted in chaos, no matter what you attempt. Knowing that the Afghan government was hanging on by merely a thread it would be impossible to enforce a stable evacuation. --Get Vaccinated (talk) 19:10, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Honestly, if I had to bet, the United States faces a much greater threat by a future Timothy McVeigh clone deciding to get violent with Washington government space (due to a dumb belief that Angry Baby is the "legitimate" president) or other bullshit along alt-right/white supremacy/Christian Identity/QAnon/incel type space. The Taliban are be extremist fundamentalist shitheads, but I don't recall them directly participating in foreign terrorism, and a quick Google search suggests they haven't. The Taliban, granted, coddled Osama Bin Laden, but I don't recall them actually being the instigators. If the United States was really angry about the actual source of terrorist activity that led to 9/11, they would've played hell with Saudi Arabia. But we know how geopolitics goes. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 19:26, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Dutchbag's proposed scenario is out of touch with reality to a maniacal degree. The Taliban and Bin Laden had cordial relations over their mutual connections with the Mujahedeen back in the day, combined with a similar view for what an ideal society would look like. They let him hide out there over that...but the plotting of 9/11 was done by SAUDI militants pissed about U.S troops on what they called sacred ground. I would agree with PGGB that, in terms of damage done to the U.S.A, we should fear Trump-radicalized right wing militia fanatics far more.-Flandres (talk) 19:35, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it's clear the US had the right and political will to remove the Taliban, in addition to destroying the al-Queda network. But there were multiple chances to reach a political solution well after the military conflict was essentially over. The Bush administration however quickly became more interested in Iraq, which we had no right to invade. It's a frustrating comparison, because for all intents and purposes, the country we had no right to invade, became the greater success. And it isn't because of anything the US did, only that Iraq had infrastructure, bureaucracy, and a more urban populace. Afghanistan was a massive failure for many many reasons, but the largest to me was hubris, that democracy can be forced on a nation.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 21:55, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

New gadget for sysops (and everyone else)
User target log - Gets you a quick link in the toolbar when you visit a userpage that links you to a page that shows you every action the user has been a target of. This is more useful than the normal Log link, which only shows you the actions the user has done themselves. This should hopefully save everyone a few clicks when needing to poke through a users history for things like the vandal bin. -- Techpriest (talk) 20:10, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I... don't see it. Is it called something else?  20:16, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you get us updawg?-Hastur! (talk) 20:23, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Special:Preferences. Christopher (talk) 20:33, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * How 'bout a Scroogepoot quote generator? UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 20:35, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I was working on a random Don Trump soundbite generator before abandoning it. 20:41, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Go to your preferences, gadgets, enable User target log. When visiting a user page/talkpage you should see a new link called "Target Logs" below the logs link. -- Techpriest (talk) 01:16, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The community demands updawg-Hastur! (talk) 01:59, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Not much, how about you? -- Techpriest (talk) 02:09, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Good enough-Hastur! (talk) 02:11, 21 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I second the demands of Hastur. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 02:13, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Continuing archived conversation
Is there a way to continue a saloon bar conversation that's been archived? I'm guessing not and you just have to create a new conversation but I'm still kinda new here so just want to check. Hansen128 (talk) 02:08, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yup, just create a new conversation. Link to the old one too, that might help.  Can't promise you anybody will want to rehash things, of course.  Topics are generally only archived because they've been abandoned-Hastur! (talk)  02:10, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Should I get vaccinated even though I'm in my early twenties?
I currently feel that I should not take the vaccine but not for the reasons people tend to say. I don't think the vaccine is dangerous. But as a citizen of a wealthy nation, I am irritated by the mindset that we should prioritize our own young citizens instead of risk groups in poorer countries.

1) People say that if we all don't get vaccinated, the pandemic won't end. Okay, sure. But lots of people who have a huge risk of dying are still not getting vaccinated, and the reason for this is partly that rich countries want to be 100 percent vaccinated before giving it to people in India or Peru or whatever. Why not vaccinate the people at the biggest risk first, instead of people like me who have no underlying disease? The disease will not mutate in the West if 100% of the population is vaccinated, but it will still mutate in poorer countries where people aren't vaccinated, and it will spread here. So the argument makes no sense. We can't look at this virus as solely a national or continental issue.

2) Another argument is "it's not like your dose of the vaccine will be transferred to someone who needs it more in a poor country". But that's missing the point of why I don't want to take it. If I took the vaccine, I would be a hypocrite; I can't say that the West is shitty for giving young people a third dose while I'm fully vaccinated myself. If I take the vaccine, I have to be comfortable with saying "I think the government is right to give me the vaccine before an old person with heart disease". And I don't believe that.

3) Another argument is "you'll infect other people around you. But I barely meet anyone, and people at risk have already been vaccinated. If I'm sick I'll just stay home.

Can anyone explain why I'm so wrong in this? I can't take the vaccine without actually believing it's the right thing to do. Softcommie (talk) 08:58, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * While I agree that this is a global problem, you can't ignore that the local level matters too. I'd start with the fact that children are in COVID ICUs now in US states which decided that vaccines/mask mandates seem too love-thy-neighbor-Christian pinko commie, so it's not only the 'poorer' countries at risk of developing new breakthrough variants—I can't and won't argue that it's more likely in more vaccinated countries, but therein lies the rub: you sound like you're sure that you won't get infected, and if you do, it's fine because you'll stay at home. As sure as you sound about just staying at home if you're sick, how long have you been infectious until you know you're sick? And keep in mind that these wealthier countries will keep hogging vaccine resources until they're satisfied they're safe, so at best you might slowing down the distribution of those vaccines through COVAX. Kntai (talk) 09:47, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * - Local level does matter of course but where I'm at the amount of people dying from covid has been very low, I'm talking like one number figures here for several months.
 * - The risk of covid leading to severe symptoms in children or young people without any underlying disease is very low from what I've read.
 * - I'm not arguing that it's only poorer countries that are at risk of developing new variants of covid. I'm just saying that it can happen in any nation, so getting a Western country fully vaccinated does not mean that there won't be a new variant.
 * - Since I am in the minority where I'm from about not taking the vaccine, I am sceptical about the idea that any individual action that I take (taking it or not taking it) will actually lead to anything. I don't want to be a hypocrite. I think that it is ethically wrong to vaccinate healthy people before people who have a huge risk of dying. If my thinking is wrong, then why did no one think that it would be a good idea to vaccinate young, healthy people when the vaccines started to show up? Softcommie (talk) 10:48, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You're offering a lot of defensive wording to the point of projecting the responsibility to others.
 * - The amount of one number figures can turn into two number to three number figures in weeks.
 * - Whatever you've read, I think it's more hypocritical to think "oh, but it's so low a number for children that I might as well not get vaccinated"
 * - Correct, but at this point the balance leans more on the virus getting smarter than us. You getting vaccinated makes it harder for it to get smarter.
 * - "Why did no one think that it would be a good idea to vaccinate young, healthy people when the vaccines started to show up?" Because at the time, when the virus was beginning to spread, it was spreading quickest in the elderly and otherwise compromised. Now it's mutated, as you say it will likely do in "poorer countries." And again, it has spread to children in the US. Feast your eyes and ears on this: DFW Area Pediatric ICU Beds More Than 99% Occupied, Hospital Council Says
 * - Whether you're Aussie or Kiwi, your choice is effectively contributing (or not contributing in this case) to your region's health. Is that virtuous, or—in other words—not hypocritical?
 * And I should also say, it's always the minorities suffering the most in wealthy countries. Mississippi 8th Grader Dies With COVID Hours After Gov. Reeves Downplays Child Cases (Updated) If you think you're privileged, then use that privilege and go out and make sure everyone in your country has the option. Kntai (talk) 12:04, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * - On the risk of a new covid outbreak in my area: all risk groups are vaccinated, more than half of the total population have taken both doses and 80% of the population has taken at least one vaccine jab. It doesn't sound likely that my area is gonna have a new wave that will result in many deaths.
 * - Any dead child would be bad, but what is the likelyhood of that happening where I live? One person under the age of 20 have died where I'm from, and that is since the start of the pandemic so I don't know if that person actually was healthy.
 * - The virus will get smarter no matter if I take the vaccine or not. Not in my country but in India or Peru. As long as covid continues to be a huge problem in some countries, it will mutate.
 * - Old and sick people weren't prioritized because the virus was spreading quickest in their ranks (I'm not even sure if that statement is accurate). They were prioritized because they had the highest risk of dying from the disease.
 * - I don't think you're using the word "hypocritical" correctly, but I guess that's not the most important issue here. But do you agree with this statement: "It makes more sense to vaccinate a healthy young person than a sick or an old person, even if the healthy young person is not in contact with sick or old people or even people in general". Softcommie (talk) 12:28, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Sounds grand that your area's that well-vaccinated; not so grand that you think that means you needn't because it's "not your problem but that of some countries where it will continue to be a huge one." And yes, definitely the virus spread the quickest in homes for the elderly and care facilities in the US at least—and the UK prioritized vaccinations for the elderly and essential care workers in a bid to stop it in its tracks. Of course they were getting vaccinated because they were at the risk of dying.
 * As to that statement you're asking me to reply to, pffft. You've pre-qualified it to suit an argument so much, it effectively is one. I refer you to the other replies. Get jabbed. Take care. Kntai (talk) 23:36, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I could try to de-pre-qualify that statement. "It makes more sense to vaccinate a healthy young person than a person who will likely die because of the virus". Softcommie (talk) 13:19, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * In which case I would say, "they both need it." I'm immunocompromised due to autoimmune disease treatments. I've had my shots. I'll probably need a booster, but in the meantime the people without their shots could be slightly problematic to my continued existence. Kntai (talk) 09:19, 17 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes. 10:15, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * From everything you've said so far, it is ludicrous not to get vaccinated. Shabi  DOO  12:03, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Take the fucking vaccine. If it helps, try & think of it like wearing a seatbelt. You could probably live your entire life without ever buckling up and be perfectly fine. But that, of course, would be scant consolation should you ever find yourself being ejected at speed through your windshield. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 12:48, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think a seatbelt is a good analogy, it's more like drunk driving. No matter how safe your car is, it's not safe for the residents of the nursing home you plow into.  14:07, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Solid data doesn't seem to be in yet, but it is very possible that the delta variant of COVID-19 actually affects younger people more significantly than previous variants. So both analogies work. 12.12.234.70 (talk) 14:18, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah but after more than a year of blatant manipulation and scare tactics, it's hard to take the news seriously. I remember this CNN article about a "healthy" teen who suddenly died of COVID, but buried deep in the article it's mentioned he was diabetic and had a blood sugar level of 1500, literally triple the amount needed to put someone in a diabetic coma.  14:38, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm happy enough with it in terms of common, sensible mitigation of small, but non-zero, risk. That, and the thought that "I'm such a fucking idiot!" is no way to die, whether you're being intubated surrounded by loved ones, or bullseyeing your way through some laminated safety glass with yer heed. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 15:09, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The more likely scenario is you watch your parents die because you were too pusillanimous to get vaccinated. 15:56, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * To me it doesn't matter. The flu also is more deadly to the elderly than the young (usually), but it's still a good idea to get the flu shot each year even if you are young and think you are invincible. If only because catching the flu fucking sucks. Plus, your chance of dying / hospitalization from the flu even when young isn't 0. And yes, there is a "good for society" factor of maybe helping reduce the disease impact a bit for people who are more vulnerable. COVID has even better calculations than the flu vaccine because the virus currently isn't mutated tens of ways (so the vaccine is pretty effective from all reports) and at the moment is a worse disease than current strains of the flu. And yes, the chance of dying / hospitalization from COVID when you are young, while heavily reduced, isn't 0, and yes, there is a good for society factor as well. To me the calculation overwhelms any of the small risks the vaccine poses. 12.12.234.70 (talk) 16:09, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Your chance of dying in a car crash on the way to get vaccinated also isn't 0. If you are young and healthy, you get the vaccine because you aren't a selfish jackass.  Honestly though, I think there should be a sort of passport for non-essential things.  E.g., bars, music venues, sports, airplanes.  You have to show your ID to get into those places already, just have a picture of your card on your phone and then done.  16:21, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

To respond to your points about virus mutation. As I understand it, dangerous mutations can arise in a single individual (albeit one with a dodgy immune system). And that individual could conceivably be you - it doesn't have to be somebody in some remote country. As I see it, stopping the spread where you is as important as stopping the spread somewhere else.

I do agree though that vaccinating rich first-world adolescents while elderly people in developing world miss out does feel a bit odd. But I still think you should go ahead.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:25, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You are the only one so far to respond to this specific part of my text. Do you agree that if I take the vaccine, I would be a hypocrite to suggest that people who are at a higher risk should take it before healthy young people? Because it feels as though taking the vaccine is basically giving approval to the Western attitude of "every country for itself". And is Tedros Adhanom of the WHO basically an idiot for suggesting that the wealthy nations are being unreasonably selfish when it comes to vaccines?
 * I might actually get the vaccine just to make my friends stop bugging me about it. But it would go against my ideological standpoint on this issue. I wonder if people here have actually entertained the idea that vaccine nationalism could be a bad idea. Softcommie (talk) 19:40, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Due to vaccine hesitancy, lots of vaccine is being thrown out in the USA due to it passing its expiration date.


 * So you not getting vaccinated isn't going to magically make that vaccine available in some third-world nation. There is the matter of logistics. CThrash (talk) 18:12, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Getting vaccinated is something that is both in one's self-interest and that is also good for society as a whole (altrusim). As a young person, you still have a risk from getting sick or croaking from the new variants. You also have a risk of being an asymptomatic carrier who infects others at greater risk than yourself. By not getting vaccinated, you're increasing the target population for the virus to infect and continue mutating. Bongolian (talk) 18:40, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * If vaccines were easily fungible it might be different. There are difficult logistics (particularly in refrigeration) involved in moving vaccines around the world and getting them into people. Also, vaccines have a sometimes very limited shelf-life. Get yourself vaccinated and consider yourself altruistic that you'll be less likely to spread the virus. Bongolian (talk) 19:57, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I understand you’re concerns IRT vulnerable people in poor countries not getting the vaccine. But I think of it this way: not getting the vaccine will not help those people. However, getting the vaccine makes it less likely for you to spread it to people in your own community. Of the people in your community, there is a shitload of evidence to show that the people most vulnerable are the ones already getting fucked over: poor people, racial/ethnic minorities (especially Black and Indigenous people, depending on where you live), disabled people, etc. So by not getting vaccinated, you put those people at risk while not doing anything to help the people in the poor countries. Even if you say “oh but I probably won’t spread it bc I’m careful”, the fact is that your chance of spreading it is always going to be far higher if you get infected at all than if you don’t. While I get the concerns about hypocrisy, and have sometimes felt the same way, I think it’s probably worse to make the active choice to not get vaccinated, when that’s a choice that people in those countries don’t even have, if that makes sense? By taking the vaccine I don’t think you’re saying “the way current distribution works is okay”, it feels more like saying “while the current vaccine distribution sucks, until that changes I am going to do what I can to protect myself, my loved ones, and vulnerable people in my community”. And finally, while you’re certainly correct that we can’t defeat the pandemic on a national level, at this point, defeating it at the national level is unfortunately probably the first step to defeating it on the international level. Should it be that way? No. But refusing to get vaccinated will not make it stop being that way. So basically, while the current state of play is fucked up and definitely not right, I do not think that choosing the best available option within that system means that you’re endorsing it; it simply means that you’re doing the best option available right now. Sorry if this makes no sense, but I hope that helps at least somewhat. 01:53, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Get vaccinated so Western countries don't have to keep hoarding. Seems simple to me. Although thanks to anti-vax idiots, it might not be much help (but it's honest work!) LongStylus (talk) 03:13, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Get vaccinated! Here is some good info: Click here 69  Annoy
 * I will probably try to take the vaccine soon simply in order to fit in with everyone else - similar to how I hopefully would not have behaved had I been a white person in the American South during a lynching. I'll guess I'll choose hypocrisy over perhaps alienating friends. But none of these arguments have made much sense to me. People here seem to think that lots of vulnerable people are dying right now in every Western country. That simply isn't true - the most vulnerable been vaccinated already. Defeating the virus at the national level (the stalinist scientific theory of socialism vaccination in one country) is not the first step towards defeating it on the international level. If that would be the case you would have to argue that more would have died globally this week if we had vaccinated people at risk in India instead - and surely nobody could argue for that? Softcommie (talk) 07:04, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I have a couple issues with this. First, there are vulnerable people who literally can’t get vaccinated (including children and many immunocompromised people). They are relying on people like you to get vaccinated for them. Even if a lot of them aren’t dying right now, it doesn’t take much for things to rapidly get out of control. Also you’re preaching to the choir about “vaccination in one country is a stupid way to vaccinate at the international level”. I want to just clarify that when I say “national vaccination is the first step to international”, I do not mean “it’s the best way possible”, but I do mean that it’s the only way that western governments will actually allow other countries to get vaccinated. The fact is that the rich countries will not share the vaccine until they’re comfortably vaccinated. This sucks, and is an incredibly dumb way of doing things, but what else are you gonna do about it? If you have any other ideas, I would like to hear them (this is not meant to be snarky, I would genuinely like suggestions if you have them so that I could also help). Also the thing that really gets me is, how does refusing the vaccine help anyone? Maybe this is just because I’m more of a consequentialist or smth, but I truly cannot see how refusing the vaccine (again, a choice that many people in these poor countries literally do not have the luxury of making) accomplishes anything except maybe making yourself feel better? I understand the feeling of being complicit in the truly abhorrent shit that western countries have done with this vaccine distribution. I do not think that you or I or anyone else can wash off that complicity by simply refusing the vaccine. So, instead you’re faced with two options: 1) take the vaccine, maybe speed up the rate at which western countries decide to share, increase the chance of protecting yourself and at least some vulnerable people in your community, and be complicit in the west’s bullshit; or 2) do not take the vaccine, increase the chance (however slight) of infecting someone vulnerable who can’t get vaccinated, maybe feel slightly less guilty, but still be equally complicit in the west’s bullshit all the same. I am just really struggling to understand what you’re trying to achieve. Get vaccinated, and know that it’s the best choice available to you. 08:39, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Your resistance to getting a vaccine seems silly. Plenty of users have given you all sorts of good reasons which also address your concerns
 * There are still some vulnerable people who aren't vaccinated, they can still get COVID because of unvaccinated people. There are also non-vulnerable people who can (and do) get sick and even die including healthy people. Not being vaccinated creates a pointless small risk of you getting sick and possibly dying (tiny) or transmitting it to others who do so (less tiny). If you can easily avoid this by getting vaccinated, then do it.
 * Many vaccines have been spoilt in various jurisdictions because people didn't get vaccinated. Possibly in your area, not getting vaccinated is wasting a perfectly good vaccine. I know of a few places where thousands of vaccines were thrown away because no one took them. Not getting a vaccine could possibly be a waste of a perfectly good one.
 * Unless you can magically take the dose you would have taken and send it to a vulnerable person in another country, I do not know what you expect to happen re: you unfairly getting a vaccine as opposed to an old person in Madagascar. You not taking it will not somehow motivate your government to change their policy and start sending more to other countries. Taking the vaccine though could potentially avoid wasting it and potentially avoid you or others getting sick
 * If you care that much about vaccines going to the vulnerable in less fortunate countries, then instead of protesting this by not getting vaccinated, do something about it through activism or some kind of campaigning (even if it is just through online awareness). Going "pff...I'm not taking the vaccine because it is hypocritical" doesn't achieve much and has potentially negative consequences. There is the option of both taking the vaccine and doing something about your country not donating more vaccines to less fortunate countries. I do not see why it must be one or the other but not both.
 * Shabi DOO  08:45, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * (Also, I just want to apologise. My last response was, I think, far too harshly worded and mean. I absolutely understand where you’re coming from and I do think it’s admirable that, unlike many people, you’re actually thinking about this stuff and not just going “oh well my country’s vaxxed so fuck the rest of the world”. While I stand by the substance of my arguments, I still could’ve been a lot less rude, and not got so personal with them — eg the whole “making yourself feel good” thing was pretty uncalled for. While it’s no excuse, I would like to say that my rudeness was not really caused by you, but instead because I’ve had an extremely stressful and frustrating day in my personal life. That doesn’t mean I should have misdirected my frustration. So I’m sorry for that, but also, please do listen to what I and the other users have said here. You really should get vaccinated, it’s by far the best choice here) 09:00, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * "do something about it through activism or some kind of campaigning" Unless one is suggesting terrorism to force the West to actually reduce global deaths in a significant way, which is a bad idea, I don't see how I could do anything about it.
 * I'll try to get vaccinated as soon as possible, but nobody made a very convincing argument here. Taking the vaccine is equal to agreeing with what one user here have more or less said: "groups at a high risk shouldn't be prioritized". But I hope that I one day will be pressured to apologize for taking the vaccine while so many without it died: "I just did what everyone else told me to do". Softcommie (talk) 13:19, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

There should be a term for an internet user who asks for advice or opinions and then rejects every good option/argument given AND shows hopelessness. I'll just call it the "Machina effect" for now. Are you friends? If you were consistent with your beliefs you would eat nothing but a piece of bread every day in solidarity with starving East Africans to whom your country isn't sending excess food. As for activism, there's tons you could do. if activists had your attitude the nothing would change. Shabi DOO  19:34, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * my family lives in a poor country, why do u think they’ll be grateful to u for refusing the vaccine. they never got that choice and a few of them are now dead because of it. u think they want u to do that??? u think theyll be going “oh thank u thank u so so much for “disagreeing” with the rollout but doing nothing about it?” get real mate. my grandmother isnt getting the vax just bc some dumb westerner takes a moral stance. she might get it if u do some fucking activism, but u have written that off. she might get it if western countries reach a vax rate high enough for them to share, but u have also written that off. but hey at least ur conscience will be fine (at least, unless u kill a disabled and unvaccinated child bc of ur self righteousness) &mdash; Unsigned, by: 185.104.184.145 / talk
 * I've been in many internet discussions and I continue to be surprised by people's anger at someone not automatically accepting their argument as gospel.
 * "If you were consistent with your beliefs you would eat nothing but a piece of bread every day in solidarity with starving East Africans to whom your country isn't sending excess food."
 * Well, I do donate roughly 16 dollars a month in total to two charities: Médecins Sans Frontières and Save the Children. I think that they do sometimes give food to people.
 * Is there a vaccine charity organisation in which one can donate money to buy one dose of vaccine for someone else? (I'm genuinely asking as that would basically make my scepticism disappear.)
 * "if activists had your attitude the nothing would change"
 * So what do you exactly suggest that I do? The WHO has already pointed out the stupidity of the West. Médecins Sans Frontiéres tells me that counties that consist of 16% of the world population have bought 60% of all available vaccine. Nobody cares. Trying to convince anyone of this is like trying to convince people to stop eating beef (global warming) or leaving their religion. Most will not listen.
 * "my family lives in a poor country, why do u think they’ll be grateful to u for refusing the vaccine"
 * No. Just like I don't think a murdered Jew would be grateful for me refusing to buy products that he produced in a concentration camp. If you had actually read what I'd written, you would see that that the biggest issue for me was the hipocrisy.
 * "she might get it if u do some fucking activism, but u have written that off."
 * Okay, tell me what activism you are doing and how that's working out for you.
 * "she might get it if western countries reach a vax rate high enough for them to share, but u have also written that off."
 * She will probably have died before the anticipated quota of 96.99% have been reached in the west, I'm sorry to say. And I doubt that will be a product of unwillingness to take the vaccine (see last line in this reply).
 * "but hey at least ur conscience will be fine unless u kill a disabled and unvaccinated child bc of ur self righteousness"
 * Yes, the unvaccinated disabled children who I either meet in person, or whose close contacts, such as family members and assistants, haven't been vaccinated.
 * Well, anyway people: have no fear because I will vaccinate, as soon as possible; there's apparently a long queue in my area. Softcommie (talk) 13:15, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah I will definitely call this the Machina effect. It isn't your disagreement with them, it's your summary rejection of the totality of many clearly reasonable arguments. As for activism there are countless things you can do from low scale petitions and letter writing to large scale volunteering with activist organisations. Zheesh...you give up before you even look into your options. Shabi  DOO  14:54, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Softcommie: while this may just be an intractable philosophical difference, I would strongly advise you to focus less on your perceived hypocrisy, and more on the actual consequences of your actions/inactions. I personally think that is a better to engage in an action that is arguably hypocritical but has a chance of preventing serious illness or death, rather than an action that is non-hypocritical but has no tangible positive consequences. You may disagree with this perspective, but I would ask you to at least consider it. I would also appreciate if you could view these consequences from a less absolute perspective. By this I mean, you say there’s no point getting vaccinated or engaging in activism bc the chance of it making a difference is low. However, I would argue that an action with even a small chance of a positive outcome is still far better than an action with no chance of a positive outcome. I do not think it’s reasonable to completely write off even small benefits, if these benefits outweigh those of the alternative. Basically, what I’m saying is that you’re unlikely to convince anyone in this debate without proving that the consequences of non-vaccination are better than those of vaccination. Otherwise, I think we’re just gonna keep going in circles, as we’re arguing from entirely different ethical frameworks.
 * TLDR — from my perspective, you seem to place more importance on personal hypocrisy, while I and the other users seem to place more emphasis on the consequences of actions. I would suggest considering our perspective. 05:22, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Addendum: you say you do donate to charities that help people out. That’s good and cool! However, I still think you are too hasty to write off activism that doesn’t meet some threshold of significance. As for charities that donate COVID vaccines to others, I do not not know of any, but I would definitely encourage you to seek them out and let us know if you find any. 05:28, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * "It isn't your disagreement with them, it's your summary rejection of the totality of many clearly reasonable arguments."
 * It isn't my disagreement with the arguments, it's the fact that I don't agree with them. Got it.
 * "As for activism there are countless things you can do from low scale petitions and letter writing to large scale volunteering with activist organisations."
 * That's vague. May I ask what you are doing about it? That is, if you think that there's something wrong with the global distribution of vaccine.
 * "I personally think that is a better to engage in an action that is arguably hypocritical but has a chance of preventing serious illness or death, rather than an action that is non-hypocritical but has no tangible positive consequences. You may disagree with this perspective, but I would ask you to at least consider it. [ . . . ] Basically, what I’m saying is that you’re unlikely to convince anyone in this debate without proving that the consequences of non-vaccination are better than those of vaccination."
 * Well, I am trying to get vaccinated now, so it's not like this discussion will lead to me not getting the vaccine. But at what point does preventing potential serious illness or death become extreme? In 2019, 2026 people in Britain died in traffic accidents. Had we banned cars (except for ambulances etc), a lot of these people would still be alive. How can you possibly defend driving a car when you know that the consequences of not driving are better than those of driving? Do you see what I mean? Softcommie (talk) 08:10, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Someone who summarily rejects multiple good arguments has almost certainly already made up my mind. You are such a Machina. This is even more obvious with your handwaving of suggested activism by "calling it vague". Pfff. Do your own bloody homework and find something to do about it in your local area if you really give a shit. I dedicate my activism to other things Softcommie, like Female Genital Mutilation and LGTBQ+ rights. I care more about that than vaccines and it takes up a considerable amount of my little free time. Consider taking a deep look into yourself in how you quite probably make up your mind, ask people what they think, and then discount whatever they say. It is a pretty intellectually dishonest way to deal with things and you won't learn much or develop yourself dealing with issues this way. Shabi  DOO  08:19, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * (EC) From my perspective, A S E L A's been charitable and nice to you from the beginning, even apologizing when they thought they were impolite. I've been wondering if I should thank them for not being cranky like me—but now, seeing you reply to them after they asked you—very politely—to not think in absolutes but employ empathy and to see where others are coming from certainly reinforced my crankiness. You blame others for expecting you to come to their point of view; I think you expect others to come to your viewpoints like a devoted contrarian. Let me remind you that you came here to ask RW for a second opinion of sorts, yet every time you have shot down any opinion. I was okay with you trying to argue around a molehill with me, but seriously, the best I can say right now is that I'm glad that you're getting vaccinated. Even if you capped that news off with meandering to 'oh noes, where is the line when we're getting too extreme with our reactions to world events.'
 * Side note: genuine thanks for being nice, A S E L A. Kntai (talk) 08:32, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I am glad you are getting vaccinated Softcommie. However, I’m sorta struggling to understand how your argument relates to mine? I do have communication issues as I am autistic, so I sometimes have difficulty accurately interpreting what other people mean, so if that’s my error, I apologise. I guess I’ll just explain my interpretation and perspective, and ask you to let me know if I’m mistaken at any point. You ask “at what point does [the prevention of some form of harm] become extreme?”, to which my response would be “when that prevention causes more harm than the alternative”. I don’t believe that you should prevent any random harm without regard for the consequences; in fact, I believe I have previously stated that I focus more on weighing up the harm of each respective option. As regards to your car example: I should firstly say that I actually legitimately don’t like cars, I do think that we should decrease our dependence on them, and I myself can’t drive due to my medication. However, that’s not really directly relevant, I just wanted to be upfront about my perspective and potential biases. Now, getting on to your argument. You argue that my perspective logically forces me to ban cars due to the accidents they cause. I would disagree. If the only consequence of banning cars was the prevention of accidents, then I would agree, but it isn’t. Without massive investments in public transport and/or the abolition of capitalism, many people around the world require a car to work, and thus to pay rent, buy food etc. As long as people need to work to survive, and as long as so many people work in places that can only practically be reached by car, then you’re gonna have to deal with the consequence of significant unemployment. Additionally, in places like the US, an ambulance can be incredibly expensive. So until you make ambulances cheaper (or, I mean, free), many people with medical emergencies are going to be forced to choose between not seeking emergency medical care or going severely into debt. On top of all this, there’s another of potential harms that I can imagine but not fully quantify due to my lack of understanding — particularly things relating to the economy, the transport of goods via trucks, etc. So, if I was forced to choose strictly between “instantly banning cars” and “not instantly banning cars”, I would argue that the negative consequences of the former option outweigh those of the latter. However, if I was given other options that would reduce accidents without these negative consequences — things like seatbelts and airbags, driver instruction, and the aforementioned measures that decrease our reliance on cars — then I would choose those options. Does this make sense? Please let me know if my explanation is unclear


 * Now, as regarding vaccines, here is where I think the analogy fails. You personally choosing to get vaccinated does not, in my mind, have any negative consequences that I can think of, apart from those related to your personal feeling of hypocrisy. The car analogy, as discussed, does have negative consequences (at least, in the form you proposed). Now, if you were to choose an option for banning cars or otherwise mitigating accidents that doesn’t have these consequences (such as the ones discussed above), then I think the analogy would fit. I think a better analogy would be something like wearing seatbelts. Now, I don’t know enough about cars or about your local covid situation to accurately quantify the relative benefits of these two actions. However, for the purposes of this analogy, the important thing is that they have some probability of preventing some amount of harm, though this may not be absolute. Like the vaccine, wearing a seatbelt gives you some chance of preventing serious harm to yourself or others. Like a vaccine, this may not necessarily be a huge or absolute chance, but it still exists. And, like getting vaccinated, it does not seem to cause any quantifiable harm in and of itself. Would you agree with this analogy? If so, would you argue that it is “extreme” to wear seatbelts?


 * So, that’s why I feel like your argument, as I understand it, fails. However, if I’m missing anything, or you feel I have made any mistakes here, please feel free to let me know. As a final point, you might be wondering “why are you arguing about this if I’m already getting the vaccine?”, to which I have a couple of reasons. Firstly, I feel like I have so far failed to effectively and accurately communicate my position, since it seems that you may have misinterpreted some aspects of it. Due to my aforementioned communication difficulties, I find it somewhat stressful when I feel like I’m being misunderstood, so I just want to rectify that. Secondly, I am somewhat concerned about the possibility that someone else reading this might find your arguments convincing, and then use that as a reason to not get vaccinated themselves. While I don’t think that’s very likely, it is something that could have pretty severe consequences, and it’s fairly easy for me to play some role in preventing that hypothetical. And finally, well, I don’t really have anything else to do. I mean, I kinda do, but I don’t want to do it and probably wouldn’t be doing it right now regardless. Probably unlikely to respond much further however, since I should probably actually do that stuff at some point after I wake up tomorrow morning. Anyway, hope that helps


 * PS: thank you for the kind words Kntai. 12:43, 19 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I think I am used to, and prefer, debates where no side is too willing to give up and will keep on arguing even if they're not fully sure if they're right or not. If I give up before I feel convinced, how could I know that what I thought was wrong? Being convinced isn't simply a matter of choosing to flip a switch in your brain.


 * Kntai, I do not feel that I have been rude to A S E L A. I have no problem with A S E L A. I have only replied with hostility to those that have replied to me with hostility.


 * ShabiDoo, I am not convinced by your answer of "do your own research". You say that there are ways for me to fix the vaccine inequality, but you fail to give any concrete examples. You're right that it's not "your job to educate me", but then again, it's not your job to reply to me either. Furthermore, you say that I am "intellectually dishonest", which should mean that I am knowingly ignoring/handwaving arguments that I know are completely valid and great in order to protect my worldview or ego etc. If you see me as a troll, then don't feed me and let me starve instead.


 * A S E L A, it is true of you to say that getting rid of cars without anything to replace it would lead to people not being able to hold down jobs. But what about replacing them with more public transport, or carpooling? That should mean fewer vehicles and therefore probably fewer accidents. Is driving a car instead of taking the bus the wrong thing to do because of the risk of running someone over (in non-pandemic circumstances of course)?


 * You have so far not said anything against my idea that I am a hypocrite if I take the vaccine. You seem to have argued though that it is better to be a hypocrite than potentially infecting someone else with covid who might die or infect a third person who dies etc.


 * What I am thinking about is
 * 1) the likelyhood of me getting infected
 * 2) the likelyhood of me infecting someone else and killing that person
 * 3) the likelyhood of that person infecting someone else who will die
 * 4) whether or not the probability of 1, 2, and 3 happening is so likely that I it really makes sense become a hypocrite in this issue. If not vaccinating the most vulnerable first is immoral, anyone who takes it who isn't vulnerable or around vulnerable people is an accessory after the fact.
 * 5) how strong the argument of "the poor nations will not get anything from your refusal" is. A thief steals an organ from a child. The thief shows it to the father of a child patient. "You have stolen that!", the father says. "Yes, but your refusal of this organ won't make the victim any more healthy". What is the right thing to do? Accept the organ? Refuse it?


 * Just to be clear, I wasn't trying to suggest earlier that you are wrong to continue to engage with me; I was just trying to make people be sure that these discussions would not lead to me not getting the vaccine. Softcommie (talk) 09:43, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * When I said earlier that you're a contrarian, this is what I mean. You come to ask a question from people you've never spoken to before, twist yourself into a pretzel when offered opinions, and at the end of it say that you're only replying in a hostile manner to people who are not amused by you going "but what about...?" and then start to pick apart their analogies or personal views. You ostensively came here for a sanity check but then were like "but I don't wanna, what if and how can you tell me why you're right?" Kntai (talk) 10:07, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Softcommie: yes, as stated I would absolutely support replacing most or even all cars with public transport. That feels like a different scenario than the one you offered though? You implied that a ban on cars would be extreme. Since I wouldn’t consider the replacement of cars with public transport to be extreme, I assumed that’s not what you were talking about. Apologies if I was mistaken. As for whether it’s immoral for people to drive instead of taking public transport, that depends on how accessible the public transport is, where they’re going and why, and stuff like that. But if everything else was equal, then yeah I would probably consider it morally better to catch the train. Not significantly so, as in I wouldn’t hassle someone for it, but I still think it would be the right thing to do, yes. As for the rest of your argument: well then we are at an impasse. I did not argue about whether you were a hypocrite or not, because to me that’s a question that I feel is much harder for me to prove one way or the other, one that it’d be even harder to convince you of, and most importantly, one that I just don’t really consider all that important. As I said, I don’t really consider personal hypocrisy to be as serious as the potential consequences of not vaccinating. I personally feel like it’s too abstract and personal/subjective for me to really consider in my calculus, and that it only really affects one person’s self-image/personal morality etc, especially when compared to consequences that may affect more than one person. However, you clearly give that perception of hypocrisy much more moral weight than I do. That’s fine, but it does seem like an issue that I don’t think we can come to an agreement on, since it’s pretty hard to just Facts and Logic someone into changing the entire way they view moral and ethical questions, if that makes sense. The idea of placing hypocrisy above the negative consequences of non-vaccination is just alien to my ethical framework, as I’m sure my near-complete dismissal of the weight of hypocrisy is to you, and thus I don’t even really know how to argue whether it’s hypocritical or not, if that makes sense?


 * As for your thought experiment: for me this is much harder to evaluate. I will agree that, leaving aside the consequentialist aspect, it’d still be clearly wrong and hypocritical; however, this is partially because I’m not, like, robotically rigid about my ethical frameworks: if my general framework leads to a result that I intuitively find to be morally incorrect, I have no qualms about abandoning it in that instance. I feel like the example you provided fits the criteria of “something worth violating my general ethical framework”, but the covid vaccination example does not. It’s hard to really justify this, and I admit it’s purely subjective and somewhat irrational, but it seems like the best option for me to deal with this stuff.. However, if I was to try and justify it with my consequence-based framework (which feels kind of pointless given what I just described, but still worth doing). I would say that, in that particular case, the negative consequences of accepting far exceed a personal feeling of hypocrisy, and that the consequences of rejection would not justify it. Firstly, accepting would likely cause definitive and justifiable guilt in the father, enough to probably make life unbearable. Secondly, this person’s support of the action is likely to encourage further such organ harvesting, whereas western countries are gonna do the shitty vax distribution regardless (this is a weak argument, but it’s there). Thirdly, accepting the organ would only cause benefits to the receiver, rather than to other people (I tend to value altruism higher than egoism). These are all weak arguments, since my standard ethical framework isn’t really one equipped to deal with that kind of situation. However, I do think that the vaccine question is, primarily as a function of the fact that we’re talking about a vast, and relatively abstract, kind of summation of a huge number of individual consequences and actions, because of the fact that the beneficial consequences are altruistic rather than egoistic, and because, well, it just “feels” different to me. That’s not a satisfying or objective answer, but I do not and cannot pretend to be a completely objective person. I don’t view the totality of my ethical views as being a strict algorithm, and also I generally don’t spend enough time really engaging in the depths of abstract ethical thought experiments to really know how to deal with them.


 * You’re free to view this as proof that my ethical framework fails to answer your question, and I wouldn’t blame you for doing so. But I personally just view it as evidence that ethics are messy, abstract, personal, and subjective. Hence why I don’t feel like I can really prove to you that the possibility of getting others sick carries more weight than personal hypocrisy in terms of the vaccine question. I’m sure that, if I really put my mind to it, I could find a similar example where your personal ethical system would also intuitively fail, and I guess I’ll do so if you really want me to prove that (tho again, I do have things to do, don’t think we’re gonna convince each other regardless, and I don’t have much experience with these kinds of ethical thought experiments, so no guarantees). However, if you’re at least able to accept that such a thought experiment could exist (or even imagine one yourself), then hopefully you’ll see my point. If someone had thought of a surefire framework to objectively determine the correct answers to such questions, well, that’d be neat, but I really just don’t think one can exist.


 * Just a couple of notes to finish up here: firstly, I did not feel like you were implying I should stop engaging. I was just preemptively explaining myself, in case that question came up later. I also did not think you were particularly rude to me personally (though I cannot and will not speak for other users), and I appreciate you engaging with the actual questions in what appears to be generally good faith. Additionally, for what it’s worth, my personal opinion on whether or not accepting vaccines is hypocritical is as follows: I don’t think it’s any more hypocritical than, say, accepting that climate change is an existential threat and that we should do our best to mitigate it, but still using electricity to charge your phone. This is to say, not hypocritical enough for me to be particularly concerned about it. But that’s, again, not really relevant to the point I wanted to make, not something I feel comfortable debating, and very much dependent on where one draws the line. Additionally, I do think that you are underestimating the risks of non-vaccination, especially when I include factors like children being primarily unvaccinated, breakthrough cases in vaccinated people, the incredibly unpredictable transmission of covid, and the effects of potential variants (both current and future). However, I really don’t know enough about your personal situation or local community to really accurately determine or debate this, aside from just a general “maybe it’s worth rethinking”. I would like to request that you do not attempt to debate me about these two issues (how low the risks truly are, and how hypocritical getting vaccinated truly is), because as I have stated, I don’t feel I’m in a position to defend them, and the tests of my arguments are specifically designed to be valid regardless of the answers to these questions. Thanks a bunch. 15:43, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you A S E L A for a great reply. I think this reply kind of was the straw that broke the camels back. I agree with you now. I guess I'll summarize what I should have to say about this vaccine stuff.
 * Even if the risk that I or anyone else will die because of me not getting vaccinated is very low (as the most likely to die from it have gotten the shot), I should vaccinate because of the combination of the fact that
 * 1) there is no hope at all that our stupid, selfish governments would donate our vaccines to the nations that need it the most, so not taking the vaccine means it is not put to any use (as has already been stated)
 * 2) if I don't take the vaccine, perhaps a single person will be so unlucky that they die, and that's enough reason to vaccinate
 * 3) most people are okay with insane vaccine nationalism, so my refusal would have no effect on any present or future decision; the best case scenario is that opposition to this sort of thinking will grow before future pandemics.
 * Still haven't been able to find a free slot for vaccination though... Softcommie (talk) 16:29, 20 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree that discussing things with strangers is insane.
 * "start to pick apart their analogies or personal views"
 * Picking apart analogies and views? What is this, some kind of argumentative discussion or something?
 * I did not come here ostenibly for a sanity check, I came here to hear arguments. I am sure that you would prefer people to not interact with people of other opinions at all. The logical next step for you would be to identify me as a troll or a lost cause and ignore me. Softcommie (talk) 15:54, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

No you aren't a troll. You are a Machina. How on Earth can a discussion progress when someone just rejects every single sound and reasonable argument? I have already given you examples of what can be done and as I do not know where you live I cannot give you any further concrete details. Similarly I would not be interested in demonstrating to someone that the sky is blue. At this point you are being the complete opposite of pro-active and ridiculously petty and lazy. I am uninterested in this conversation any further and I see no prospect of it going anywhere. If it makes you feel better I will concede that you are right and that you win and I will let you have the last word. Shabi DOO  16:13, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * For the love of sugar plum faeries, you came here with a question titled as "Should I get vaccinated even though I'm in my early twenties?" and were expecting arguments instead of opinions? Kntai (talk) 10:01, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * And mind you, you did say both "Picking apart analogies and views? What is this, some kind of argumentative discussion or something?" and "I did not come here ostenibly for a sanity check, I came here to hear arguments." Kntai (talk) 10:06, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Trustee vote!
Check the site notice, it's time to start casting votes for the trustees election. Because I am a very unreliable extremely reliable and very handsome tech, the election has started two days later and will therefore end two days later. Please cast your votes so we may elect the new trustees. Techpriest (talk) 00:01, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * do we get to find out who ranked. Please tell me the answer is no,,, I do not want to come last 14:48, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * We uh do. Very sorry to report. -- Techpriest (talk) 10:35, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Why are they two Dakotas instead of one?
I was thinking that we should have one Dakota instead of a North Dakota and a South Dakota. Both states have very small populations, both are red states, both have similar economy and culture it seem silly to keep Dakota split up like this.

The only reason that Dakota is split in two was to help Republicans in 1889. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/09/when-adding-new-states-helped-republicans/598243/ 69 Annoy  01:44, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * At the time, the southern part of Dakota grew much faster in population. In addition to being much more sparsely populated, the people in southern Dakota generally didn't care for the kinds of people further north because they were mostly ranchers and had a way of provoking fights with Indians. Since they got to the statehood population threshold several times faster, they were only too happy to wash their hands of the roughnecks in the northern part of the territory. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい ) 01:54, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it is more political than cultural. The Reps back in 1889 wanted more control of Congress as well as the Electoral College. They put way to many very small populated regions into states way to early just for political reasons. 69  Annoy  01:59, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was definitely what made the change happen. It was definitely a power move by the Republicans, and a fairly effective one at that. But it would've been a lot harder to pull off if the people there actually wanted to stay together, as it was the southern part of the territory was tired of having to deal with the mayhem they didn't even create; most of them were therefore perfectly happy to go along with it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい ) 03:54, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * There’s no constitutional mechanism for merging states. 07:35, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * "I propose we merge the Dakotas for reasons obvious and obscure, henceforth, under the authority of the Air Bud clause."


 * …In all seriousness, this is going to be a big problem for us eventually. It would be much better to hash out some even-handed compromises in the context of a democratic republic/representative democracy in the Senate than wait for an American Principate to redraw the maps just to screw the Senate.


 * How would this work in practice - what hurdles can we see in this scenario? The Dakotas have to agree, the GOP has to accept the loss of two Senate seats, the (forward thinking) Democrats would need provisos that whatever novel, amended process allowed Dakota to be readmitted would not allow their conservative GOP enclaves to become states in their own right (northern California and southern Oregon -> Jefferson?). What else? Artificius (talk) 00:19, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I bet their is a constitutional mechanism that allows the Dakotas to merge. All that is needed is both states to agree as well as Congress 69  Annoy  01:40, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Proposals for new US states mentions the (possibly jokey) idea of a MegaKota combining the two into one huge cereal powerhouse. --Annanoon (talk) 09:33, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I had to look. They're almost there. It's germinating. Kntai (talk) 09:41, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm a proud Megakota supporter myself. AmericanSocialDemocrat (talk) 21:31, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Why aren't apologists taken seriously?
Do they attempt to provide explanations to defend their beliefs? Why are they not taken seriously? If they are wrong, why are they still popular among fundamentalists? 2607:FB90:1800:B259:BDCA:36E6:2767:A1E5 (talk) 00:53, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Apologists rely on quote mining and circular logic. They tend to use science sounding words to make their opinions sound logical. Another reason apologists are not taken seriously is the fact that they do not rely on peer reviewed scientific research. --Get Vaccinated (talk) 01:07, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * As for why they're popular amongst fundies, this is due to a number of psychological burps, including things like the sunk cost fallacy, peer pressure, thought terminating cliches, confirmation bias, tribalism, etc etc etc. 01:31, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The majority - maybe all apologists - start with the assumption that the religion they inhered from their parents is correct. They then look for arguments which will support the position they already hold.
 * Their arguments tend to be disingenuous because these arguments are not, in fact, the real reason they are Christians, Muslims, Hindus or whatever. They are just (possibly) intelligent-sounding excuses they give themselves and others in an attempt to justify their existing beliefs.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:58, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed Bob. I would be truly interested in reading a Descartian work that truly started from scratch without even the idea of God on their mind and yet logically led not only to the existence of God but a particular religion with all their principle tenants without a single reference to their holy books. In other words, no one in history has ever independently come up with the same religion (via reason or making it all up or the emergence of bizarre world views) and as far as I am aware, nobody has independently gone through every shred of evidence before them and found the only reasonable answer was a long list of claims which become exponentially more absurd in the aggregate. Shabi  DOO  19:04, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point about the weird nature of religious belief and scriptural tradition. The entire Judeo-Christian narrative is one of bizarrely episodic revelation and divine resets, with God mostly choosing to communicate via prophets (?!), variously encouraging, testing and outright fucking with people, and then periodically going apeshit when it all fails to graft.

If a true believer can muster sufficient faith to reconcile themselves with that, then they're clearly not sufficiently wedded to logic to feel the need to reconstruct the whole thing from first principles. Even if they could be persuaded of the grand unified apologetics value of such an enterprise, they'd likely argue it's impossible because God's had to react repeatedly to man's innate tendency towards wickedness. Why an omniscient deity should be caught on the hop like this is obviously left as an exercise for the reader.

A more modern, sophisticated apologetics concedes that much of the Bible is likely bollocks, but emphasises the importance of personal revelation, and talks about how stuff like prayer and contemplation nourishes and sustains faith even in the most trying of circumstances. Generally, people of this ilk are at least somewhat aware of the mysticism in their thinking, and would probably reject the possibility of a from-first-principles reconstruction of their beliefs in the absence of faith. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 20:46, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Newsom recall
Anybody here following that? I know a few users are from California...-Flandres (talk) 18:24, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I haven't. Internet drama. 18:37, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Is there a reason to care about the recall? 18:47, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Apparently Newsom actually has a credible chance of losing. We might see a Trumpist as governor of California.-Flandres (talk) 18:48, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, I looked into the recall process. And oh, boy does California have an idiotic system. Apparently the replacement governor only needs to get the highest number of votes in the "who do you want to replace Newsom" question that comes after the recall option. So if Newsom is recalled by 51% of the voters, than someone who has substantially less than 50% support can replace him. Absolutely stupid. 18:52, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's about what I thought when I had the system explained to me by a former resident. I honestly think Newsom will pull through, but "California DeSantis" being even somewhat likely is very disconcerting.-Flandres (talk) 18:57, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * No offence to the Americans, but every tome I learn something about ur country’s “democracy”, I start off by going “haha what the fuck that’s ridiculous”, and then I feel physically sick with horror as I realise the implications. I would appreciate it if someone could fix that &mdash; Unsigned, by: 2001:8004:DC5:1ADD:D15E:A336:D78B:94C3 / talk

As doppel-ridiculous as the American electoral college is (and their first past the post electio system and sewed representation of senate seats are, many Anglo-Saxon ciu tries have far worse examples. Countries with first past the post Westminster systems (The UK at a country level, Canada and a few Carribbean islands), majorities are frequently won with 40% of the vote or less. The last Canadian majority was 2015 where the conservatives got a majority with 39% of the vote. In Westminster systems they can do virtually whatever they like with that majority. Nova Scotia had an election this week where a majority was won with 40% of the vote. The 2019 UK election the conservatives won a massive majority with 42% of the vote. In fact getting a majority and more than 50% of popular vote is rare in those countries. It is all the worse when the conservatives win because in those cases a huge number of voters are "anyone but conservative" voters meaning the intention of the majority is not the final result. Of course both countries have been given referendums to change to proportional system as nearly all civilised countries in the west have, yet they were rejected due to misinformation campaigns by the two main parties that often win unfair majorities. There is something in many (though certainly not all) Anglo-Saxon cultures that embrace unfair representation and toxic political culture. Ireland and New Zealand are somewhat of an exception. Shabi DOO  19:56, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I concede there are a small number of disfuncional proportional representation systems, most notably Italy and Israel and recently Spain...but out of over 50 countries that is a small number and proportional systems result in highly collaborative coalition governments representing multiple interests resulting in rapid progress, less toxic rhetoric and less extreme results. Shabi  DOO  20:01, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Shabi makes a good point. First past the post is part of the reason why I refuse to vote; I feel too cynical about the system to care. LongStylus (talk) 20:06, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Following it? I'm neck deep working it. Sadly can't speak to the politics going on though. TheTallMass (talk) 22:43, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I’m australian (and the anon who posted earlier). Our electoral system isn’t perfect (and also I’m a bigger fan of direct democracy), but I’d say we’re pretty good. Compulsory voting is great (fight me if u disagree tbh), STV for the senate is excellent, instant runoff for the house is not quite as good, but still decent. We have comparatively okay transparency laws and stuff (I mean, still p bad, but far better than the US), and independent electoral commission, relatively less gerrymandering (the districts are drawn independently of I’m not mistaken). Voting standards for national elections are the same across the board — none of that “states rights to fuck around their electoral system” guff. Easy access to the votin booths — weekday voting and I’ve never had to wait more than 10 minutes, and also u get the free sausage. Ideally, I’d make the house have STV, ban all political donations over $100, decrease the role of the senate (if not abolish it, tho that’s a little drastic), and then I’d say our electoral system is mostly okay. However, our political culture and overall democracy are definitely not great. We have an absolutely huge amount of media consolidation — basically every newspaper and many other news outlets are owned by Murdoch, and he’s functionally able to decide who wins the national election. We have, fairly bad press freedom. Our main public broadcaster got raided by federal police and had files stolen, it’s almost entirely off-limits to report most things involving ASIO, whistleblowers and journalists who talk about our concentration camps too. Our public broadcaster is great but has to toe the line to not get its funding cut. And then there’s the racism. Jesus Christ, the racism. The White Australia Policy only ended in the 70s, around the same time indigenous people got the right to vote and basically to be considered human at all (also that whole, 100+ year eugenics programme we did on them, similar but different to the residential schools). I mean, since our main conservative party has existed, they been nationally in charge for 2/3 of the time. Also, the camps are supported by basically every party except the Greens (who are p good and relatively powerful, but not enough). Also lots of fuckery on the local level. That said, all these problems? America has very similar ones (with some exceptions/nuance ig), and also things like. Electoral college, gerrymandering, voter suppression, and uhhhh the fact that they almost had a coup. So, every country’s different and has its own problems, but America’s are really something. 2001:8004:DC5:1ADD:D15E:A336:D78B:94C3 (talk) 22:53, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * (this is all assuming that we keep Australia the country as it is. I’d rather give it back to the people we stole it from and completely change our whole political system honestly? but I don’t know what you people think of hardcore leftism so I’ll leave it there now 2001:8004:DC5:1ADD:D15E:A336:D78B:94C3 (talk) 22:57, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, my God is Australia ever fucking racist. Zheeeeeeeeeesh! Also, watching just a couple video clips of political speeches, parliamentary debates and political skit shows in Australia shows a fairly bonkers national political narrative. The "socialism" fear mongering, anti-climate change disinformation and migrant-hate is kind of scary sometimes.
 * While there may be a few countries in the EU I am unaware of, every other Western country I am familiar with has independent redistricting commissions and completely independent election boards which no government can fuck around with. I am also completely unaware of any other country that is actively creating voter-manipulation laws and few other western countries allow unlimited political donations (this one is the ULTIMATE poison to democracy...which exceeds ALL other political interference, problems and schenanigans combined) and those that do only allow this during the very short election campaigns and with so many political parties this results in little corporate interference like in America. A few standout countries on that front are Canada which has an extremely low maximum political donation limit (which comes across in the much lower level of corporate interference and low election budgets), France and Ireland (those countries allow around $1,000 limit donation per person or corporate entity to any politician or party. This makes pandering to corporate or personal interests fairly pointless. Norway in my opinion absolute beats any other country's pants off by allowing very little media advertising, no attack adds and encouraging mostly personalised campaigning, political literature, debates and forums. Their particularly collaborative, sensible, progressive political system and insanely responsible use and investment of their natural resources and economy is legend in Europe. Shabi  DOO  23:41, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The recall details is enshrined in the California constitution, which makes it somewhat difficult to change, but less difficult than the US Constitution (the California constitution needs a ballot proposition to be changed). For the current recall effort, the worst-case scenario would be if Newsom was recalled with only 49% against recall, Leaving 51% supporting recall. Assuming the 49% do not choose a replacement candidate and all of the 51% do choose a replacement candidate but split their vote nearly evenly among the 46 candidates. The new governor would only need something less than 2% of the vote (51% / 46 candidates). Needless to say, most of the contenders are totally unqualified for the office. The ones who are qualified are the dangerous ones. Bongolian (talk) 06:59, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It should be noted also that two voters filed a lawsuit against the recall election, claiming that it violated the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution. This argument had been put forth in a New York Times opinion by UC Berkeley Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinsky. Bongolian (talk) 07:10, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

What is science
https://answersingenesis.org/what-is-science/what-is-science/ Have a good read about what science is really about!
 * oh look - special pleading.... whodathunkit??!! :/ Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 23:00, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Question
What do you call beginning with your conclusion, and looking for evidence to support that? Example: you are beginning with your conclusion (say, that Gandalf was a Chinese spy) and "knowing how the story will turn out" with "no chance of discovering you are wrong", looking for evidence that supports your pre-determined conclusion. I think it is called Begging the Question but I am not at all sure. An Advocate (talk) 03:40, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Confirmation Bias.-Flandres (talk) 03:42, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. An Advocate (talk) 03:47, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Depending on how you do this, it could also be cherry picking, or even shoehorning. Motivated reasoning is another term you might like, but is a bit different.  In begging the question, the conclusion of an argument is also a premise of the same argument (usually phrased differently). 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒   talk  04:01, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * If you are looking for a formal falacy that seems like begging the question and cherry picking (though your scenario is somewhat vague and an example would help). Confirmation bias is not a formal fallacy but a deviation from rational thinking which may cover several formal fallacies. Confirmation bias can include phenomena beyond your example which does not necessarily include seeking proof but can mean avoiding and dismissing contrary evidence and then claiming success when favourable evidence arrises (not seeking it out). It can also involve creating filters, adding excessive weight to a few favourable pieces of evidence and even simply waiting for one single seemingly favourable piece of evidence in a sea of unfavourable ones. If you are not looking for a formal falacy but a characterisation of intellectual dishonesty then "confirmation bias" might do for that case. Shabi  DOO  04:11, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This is the quote that made me ask this question:
 * "There is always a point in my research when I stop and start writing. It usually comes surprisingly early — well before anyone else would start writing. It happens when I find a clue so formidable, so unanswerable, I know I won't be wasting my time writing... I then research as I write, looking for what I need to continue. I always find it." ---Miles Mathis. An Advocate (talk) 04:21, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The penultimate sentence is suspect but not necessarily an indication of intellectual dishonesty. By "looking for what I need" that could just mean looking for evidence in general. The last sentence though is very dubious (yet still not absolute) indication of fudgery. It certainly is worth, at least, asking the person a few questions and/or investigating their work. Quick check indicates it is a pseudoscientist, so yeah...extremely high likelihood that he is frequently guilty of begging the question and cherry picking along with general "confirmations bias" behaviour. As not all of his work is pseudoscience though, we ought to be careful to not label everything he does fallacious (which would be unwise in general with pseudoscientists...or anyone for that matter). Shabi  DOO
 * I think I will reprint the whole quote here, so we can further our analysis:
 * "There is always a point in my research when I stop and start writing. It usually comes surprisingly early — well before anyone else would start writing. It happens when I find a clue so formidable, so unanswerable, I know I won't be wasting my time writing. It is that point when I am so certain I am on the right track, there is no chance I will discover I was wrong. So I simply start writing — before having done most of the research I will end up doing — knowing it will turn out. In other words, I don't do the research first, and then write it up. I do maybe thirty minutes of fishing on the web, find that indice formidable, and immediately start writing. I then research as I write, looking for what I need to continue. I always find it."
 * I definitely agree that we should be very careful so as not to stumble into a Genetic fallacy, that was very sharp. An Advocate (talk) 14:35, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Confirmation bias tends to have connotations of subconsciousness, and based on what he says it seems likely that this is what is happening here. I suspect he's carrying out a biased search for information, and consequently either failing to locate or recognize contrary information, or forgetting it, or minimizing it (not necessarily intentionally).  This is very easy to do online, just by using biased searches.  For instance, if you think X was a hoax, and your searches are all of the form "X hoax", "why X was a hoax", "was X a hoax", etc., you are likely to get a lot of results from people claiming that X was a hoax, and not from others, who wouldn't be inclined to use the term hoax in discussion about X.
 * Forming a hypothesis based on an incomplete dataset is not necessarily fallacious. However, treating that hypothesis as a guaranteed conclusion and proceeding to gather solely evidence that supports that conclusion, rather than considering the full range of evidence, is cherry picking, whether it is done intentionally or not.  If done intentionally, then it is overt intellectual dishonesty.  What this case amounts to hinges critically on that phrase looking for what I need to continue.  In any case, though, it seems to exhibit confirmation bias and cherry picking. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒   talk  16:36, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh puke. That guy is just a walking fallacy machine, living and breathing intellectually fraudulent research techniques. This quote would serve well in a "how not to do anything intellectually or academically" text. Shabi DOO  16:44, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * True, Miles Mathis debunks Wikipedia articles (If there is one point were conspiracists and historians intersect, its that Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Source: two career historian friends) and pretends to have the Holy Grail of intelligence. I don't really care for his physics.
 * EDIT: did some more research, this guy unsuprisingly does not like James Randi or mythbusters, calling both of them "agents" out to "debunk the truth", PG. 6-8, http://mileswmathis.com/ammoon.pdf An Advocate (talk) 22:34, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Transphobic people- Pretending to be medical experts
I noticed that a lot of uneducated Transphobes pretend to be medical experts just because they might know a very small amount of Biology and distort it to fit their predetermined conclusion of transgender people being evil. Dunning-Kruger Effect in action is sad and funny. --Get Vaccinated (talk) 23:53, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * When half the country (America now) places their own judgement above that of the greatest authorities on virology, can you be surprised that a few clodhoppers think they understand trans-issues? Dunning-Kruger has nothing to do with it: sometimes ignorance is just ignorance. There are no scientific arguments that conclude " so and so is evil." "Evil" is not a term that can ever be used in science. UncleKrampus (talk) 00:37, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * In fairness, I'm quite sure most of the people who made up all the new genders of the 21st century were also not medical experts. 01:41, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Everyone likes classifications even though people are individual and defy them to some degree. I kind of look at the wide array of genders that popped up in recent years as kind of like music categories. Necessary perhaps for the need to categorize, but nothing to get too uptight about. Like music, there tends to be a tendency among some to over-micro-categorize, which in music leads to sometimes obnoxiously ridiculous debates online on whether a song is jungle chiptune house music or drum and bass Nintendo trance, or whether this band you like is funeral stoner death metal or funeral grunge doom metal. Most gender definitions seem to fall under either the cis category (the majority, cis males or females), or a spectrum of non-binary options, from transgender to transsexual to non-binary to gender-fluid, that cover a wide spectrum typically lumped under gender dysphoria in psychiatry / psychology these days. Whatever one identifies with is fine, methinks, no matter how much it confuses the computerized world, and as long as you aren't too uptight about it. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 02:49, 22 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Scalding hot take here: medical expertise shouldn’t be needed to define one’s own identity and experience. It should be needed if you want to declare those identities invalid for being “scientifically wrong”. Also, core, i don’t know if this is what you were implying or not, but just in case you were. I don’t like the implication that non-binary genders were “invented” recently. Even leaving aside the many, many, many cultures that had some form of similar identities, I think it’s also pretty silly to assume that people are only experiencing this NOW just bc you weren’t aware of it before and/or bc people have started developing new terminologies to describe those experiences. I don’t think that’s what you were implying — assuming good faith, my reading is that you’re simply commenting on the relatively recent trend towards microlabels and distinct categorisations becoming more mainstream. But if you do genuinely think the experiences of the genders themselves were “made up” (and not simply the terminology), then idk what to say except that I’m not a fan of that belief, but I simply don’t want to spend time refuting it. I’m non-binary, and its frustrating to have the same conversation so many times. Nothing personal, but I hope you’ll understand. Apologies if this comes off as snippy, I do not intend it to be such (as you have said nothing to get snippy about imo), but I sometimes find it difficult to moderate my tone and communication when discussing this topic. 2001:8004:DC5:1ADD:C162:8D54:1ED1:7373 (talk) 03:51, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * If you are frustrated by the conversation ( the general one, not this one), perhaps avoid it. I think many people talk compulsively about their own gender when it is not really called for, just because they want to make a point. So one becomes frustrated by ones own desires. Classification comprises the initial steps of a scientific method. But it is actually protoscientific, or philosophical speculation if you prefer. There is no way to know that human personalities can be classified by the equivalence classes we call genders. It really amounts to the claim that two people belonging to the same gender are in some sense equivalent. In what sense could that be true? Isn't it enough that a person becomes what they believe is their natural or true self? Even that idea is elusive seemingly contingent upon some essentialist determination. Many theories sound like jazz, to be polite. I would say, one doesn't need a theory to have a picture in ones own mind of how to live life. UncleKrampus (talk) 04:59, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This is the problem with discussing gender identity in the first place. It's all based on an individual's subjective perception, and nothing can scientifically back it or oppose it; it's unfalsifiable. It's equally fallacious to think one can "disprove" another's identity as another can vouch for it. Also, knowing this, it's puzzling why people get so defensive about their self-proclaimed identity. If it's so near and dear to you, what other people think shouldn't matter and you can't force them to believe what you believe about yourself, nor should either party chastise the other for being "scientifically wrong" because, again, it's nothing something that can be confirmed or denied with science. 69.60.33.176 (talk) 13:45, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Really? So how do we know whether or not someone is a woman? How do we know whether or not you're trans, or gay, or whatever? 14:11, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * No one knows how another identifies, that's the point. And gay isn't a gender identity. 69.60.33.176 (talk) 14:13, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * But it is the result of internal identification. Logically, you should reject sexual identification as well as gender identification, since both are based of of subject dependent statements. 14:19, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * My point, that I will restate despite you presumably having the ability to reread it, the highly generous person I am, is you can't really reject OR acknowledge as having factual reality a self-expression of gender. Yes, the identity of "being gay" could be considered unfalsifiable, but whether that person engages in gay sex is either true or false. Some people identify as being straight even though they have gay sex. That rationale may fly for some people, and it may not for others. Either way, being a gender is not something you can really...do. You can certainly provably be a sex though! 69.60.33.176 (talk) 14:27, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * How do you know whether or not they engage in sex with other men? 14:29, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't answer questions twice. You'll pay better attention next time, I'm sure. 69.60.33.176 (talk) 14:48, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * But I'm not convinced by your reasoning. Why not explain it better? How do you know whether someone engages in gay sex? Do you watch them 24/7? 14:50, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You seem to be asking questions and making points based on things I have not said. If you are unconvinced, that has largely something to with your ability to read and your ability to process information. Sadly, I have no ability to assist you with this. It is regrettable that you feel it was not explained well, but seeing how I did so in layman's terms, I'll try not to beat myself up too much about it. 69.60.33.176 (talk) 14:56, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * "Yes, the identity of "being gay" could be considered unfalsifiable, but whether that person engages in gay sex is either true or false." Look, I'm just trying to understand your position here, since it seems confusing to me. How do you know whether or not someone who claims to be gay engages in gay sex? 15:05, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Well now I'm confused. I didn't expect you to not know what unfalsifiable means. I also don't understand how the point of "someone's sexual identity may not necessarily align with their sexual habits" is a confusing point, nor can I understand how me personally knowing their sexual habits has anything do with, uh, anything. 69.60.33.176 (talk) 15:10, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Well you said that claiming to be "trans" and being "gay" is subjective and unfalsifiable, meaning that we, by your logic, cannot determine whether or not these self identifiers are true or not. But your also said that things like sexual activity and genitals can be tested, so I'm trying understand what you mean by that. So, therefore, if we can't tell whether or not someone is engaging in gay sex, we must therefore presume that we can't know whether or not they are gay? Am I understanding that correctly? 15:17, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Sadly, I'm not sure if you understand anything correctly, and I must therefore end this interview. Ask my agent if you need a laminated autograph, and drinks and refreshments are available in the lobby. 69.60.33.176 (talk) 15:33, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * So you aren't going to elaborate on your claims? 15:38, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Asking me to elaborate on what I've said is like asking to simplify the fraction 1/3. Next. 69.60.33.176 (talk) 15:41, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

To paraphrase Randall Monroe, communicating poorly and then acting smug when you are misunderstood is not cleverness. Also, simplifying a fraction is the opposite of elaboration... 15:53, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, which part could you not comprehend? The way I see it, if you need something explained to you in plain English three times, smugness is deserved. I'll reserve my patience for children and the hard of hearing. 69.60.33.176 (talk) 16:01, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * So you say that gender identity is unfalsifiable, and when I ask how you can make such a claim and compare it to a similar concept, sexual orientation, you waffle for a bit before claiming that too, by your reasoning, is unfalsifiable. But you say sexual activity is falsifiable, and when asked how you know whether or not someone is engaging in gay sex, you refuse to explain for some reason. How odd. 15:54, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * So not but 30 seconds earlier you were acting like English was your 4th language and you couldn't understand a lick of what I said, but now you understand me so well that you can extrapolate unstated information? Waffle? You must have syrup in your brain, because it's clearly operating like molasses. 69.60.33.176 (talk) 16:01, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * (ec) In fairness, any physical action a person has taken is falsifiable. It's not impossible to prove a negative, it's just unreasonably difficult.  16:10, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * But how would we know, in a social situation whether or not someone is gay or straight, man or woman? We can't all be omniscient like our friend here. 16:15, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yup, that would be unreasonably difficult to know for certain. 16:18, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You're the only one of us three who have claimed that I personally have ascertained anything of the sort. But as you mention it, my All-Seeing Eye has picked up that you are arguing in bad faith, that you have gum on your shoe, and have a credit score of 690. 69.60.33.176 (talk) 16:20, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I think I understand what the BoN is trying to say, but the BoN is being an utter twat about it. I'm tempted to give them a short vacation myself at this point.  16:21, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, they're saying we can't know either way, but you seem to think differently. So, how do we try to make social determinations? 16:24, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You do know that would just validate me right? I didn't cuss the dummy out or put a spell on his family or anything, I just showed him that trying to act like a smart-arse over semantics will get you treated like a dumb-one. 69.60.33.176 (talk) 16:25, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * BON; No, kicking you out for being a twat is not the same as proving you are "right". Sometimes you get kicked out for being a twat.
 * GC; I didn't say we couldn't know their actions, I said it was unreasonably difficult to know for certain. 16:29, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You have a lot of twats on here, as well as amongst your own ranks. Kicking me specifically would reveal that some mild smugness offended you, which is not the case of course, it's me being smug and right about it, which is doubly infuriating. 69.60.33.176 (talk) 16:32, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah but I didn't ask about their actions, since you aren't claiming that. I'm asking you the central question. Can we make a reasonable determination of someone's internal identity based off of their statements? If not, why not? 16:34, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * If the person has been to therapy and the trained psychologists agree, then yes. Otherwise it's the same situation as people simply claiming to have Asperger's without ever having gotten the diagnosis.  16:45, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * And this ties into what my *actual* point was and not simply was attributed to me by someone in their feelings. A psychologist can diagnose you with gender dysphoria, because that is a real diagnosis with scientific basis. They can't diagnose you as being "non-binary" because that's simply a subjective perception about one's own identity. I'm not saying it's not cool for you be that if you choose to be, but one can't act like someone who doesn't perceive that is acting unscientific, because such a thing can't or isn't validated by science. 69.60.33.176 (talk) 16:51, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm quite sure that psychologists can diagnose people as being non-binary or genderfluid. 17:01, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * But how would we know whether or not they've been diagnosed? Do we call up all the psychologists and ask for the names of all the patients with gender dysphoria? 17:03, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * That'd be a violation of HIPAA, obviously. If someone here claims to be autistic or trans, or male or 24 years old or 5'7 or missing a finger, I'm usually going to assume that's the case even if they could be lying.  17:09, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I've seen 0 evidence to suggest that they can, nor would I trust the credentials of a psychologist who would do such a thing. A psychologist can't assign a gender identity to anyone no more than they can assign an orientation or race. "The results are in Mr. Johnson, we've diagnosed you with a moderate case of black." Imagine the firestorm that would occur if a licensed psychologist told a patient they were diagnosed as male when the patient identified as female. That's beyond their purview. They may ask affirming questions like "do you feel like you're genderfluid" etc. but they can't assign your identity. 69.60.33.176 (talk) 17:10, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know... That sounds reasonable, but our wise friend here seems to think we need to ask the psychologists directly or something like that. 17:14, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Our friend is claiming even the psych's can't know. My response is that they aren't perfect but they generally get it right. 17:18, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm wise enough to not put words in others mouths. But I'll Cash App you a fat Grant right now if you can quote where I said we needed to ascertain anyone's personal identity as a matter of necessity, that we needed psychologists specifically to do so, or that the scientific validity of an identity is needed to choose to acknowledge their personal subjective identity. 69.60.33.176 (talk) 17:19, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * where I said we needed to ascertain anyone's personal identity as a matter of necessity, that we needed psychologists specifically to do so, or that the scientific validity of an identity is needed to choose to acknowledge their personal subjective identity.
 * You never said the quote had to be in context, only that we can do so! I have quoted the exact phrase you requested.  Now about my fat "Grant"...  17:36, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Our friend is...perfect...generally...right.
 * And here I was, hoping to get a logical framework which I could use in social interactions... 18:00, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Language usage
As the dust seems to have settled - where would (other citations exist) go?

I am not against 'considering the backstory' to words and phrases, but the choice of some words seems problematic/based on false etymologies (or equivalent terms) etc: no mention of 'short-sighted' (as a negative term), disparaging terms for red-heads etc. Anna Livia (talk) 23:08, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi there! Since you are not American from what I remember, I'd like to direct you to our page on the New York Post.
 * While not a complete piece of shit source, they are a right-wing source that... shall we say... has had some issues in the past.
 * Now, it's not like Brandeis University doesn't-gritty                                            have a "prevention, advocacy, and resource center" that has a silly "suggested language list". My first impression of this sort of thing is just something they put together, probably based on some directive from high above to explore this issue, I imagine. It's pretty stupid (actions mean more than words, and they have training to help volunteers prevent any violent situation which will matter much more!). But as they say, "use of the suggested alternatives is not a university expectation, requirement or reflection of policy". So it's like one of those memos from HR in a corporation that will, in general, be ignored by most.
 * Of course this is not in the New York Post article pointed out because their point is to complain about wokeness or something. That way, the New York Post can continue their policy of justifying the times they are ignorant asshats (and justifying the times they prop up political asshats, as long as they are from the Republican cult, that is).
 * All organizations, like most gatherings of humans, tend to have little oddities and quirks in their "culture". Better a silly list of words like this than, say, the former fratboy hellhole culture of Uber. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 23:59, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The end of the article called. Said you should read it. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 00:36, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I take back that "not in article" but will replace it with "at end of article and completely invalidates their bullshit headline title" then. Not much different. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 12:47, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Protip: as the lazy fuckwit who failed the basic test of reading until the fucking end, you're in no position to get snotty here. And no, the inclusion of the quote does not "completely invalidate" the headline, as "warns" is not, nor ever has been, a synonym of "prohibits" or "forbids". I'd like to leave you with a polite reminder re. the First Rule of Holes, and a final fuck you for making me write even vaguely in defence of such a shitty tabloid rag. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 13:18, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Since you are a troll who does jack shit in mainspace and whose primary purpose on this site is to to defend other jackass trolls in coops, your worship of the New York Post and attempts to use foul-mouthed pedantic trivialities in a sad attempt to huff up your pathetic online persona is not surprising. This is my final fuck you to you in this thread, and toodles! May you continue to enjoy wasting time on the Internet. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 13:25, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * tl;dr: I refuse to own my dumb shit and you can't make me!!


 * True enough, I guess. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 13:59, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 'The inherent tendency of certain publications etc to pick out the "stupid" examples of what is being complained about (while ignoring the valid aspects)' - 'political correctness (gone mad)' is another example.
 * There was also a discussion over 'nitty gritty' in the UK a while back (linking the term to the 'nit nurse' is probably a better false etymology). Anna Livia (talk) 19:38, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This, while not exactly the most reliable source, is pretty hard to top. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい ) 20:10, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Anyone here read the Niccolo Substack?
Interesting stuff regardless of whether you agree/disagree. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 2001:8003:DDB1:C600:1462:DA2:B9FB:2D3B / talk
 * Yeah not really interesting. Looks like a hack commentator with hack opinions. 10:47, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * And RT is promoting him... Yeah there's nothing of value here. 10:48, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This passage of the RT article on contemporary events in Afghanistan was very Russian: "Schadenfreude, too, because the liberal managerial elite (which runs the US Empire) met its match by medieval tribal culture that rejected what it has to offer. Individual rights? No thanks. Feminism? Nope. Gay Rights? LOL. The Enlightenment? Don’t want that either." CThrash (talk) 15:16, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

What kind of music are you guys into? (just curious)
Personally kanye's the goat but im sure yall gonna have a ball with that SShinx (talk) 14:46, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Recently been listening to the pillows a lot. -- Techpriest (talk) 14:48, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * just looked them up 💀💀 22 studio albums jesus, got a lot to listen to SShinx (talk) 14:55, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Grieg, Rachmaninov, Tchaikovsky, Britten. And others too numerous to mention. Scream!! (talk) 15:00, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I suppose this is as good a time as any to bump the RW playlist I set up for rationalwikians. As for my taste, most of the songs added by the little cat avatar are me (though some, particularly class rock type ones, are suggestions from other users without Spotify accounts). I guess, broadly, my main interests are things related to ambient/noise/drone/synthy stuff, things related to progressive rock, jazz fusion and other similarly “technical” genres, and things under the general umbrella of “doom metal”, especially drone doom and funeral doom. Doesn’t fully encompass everything, but they’re the general trends. 17:03, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * (new to posting here, what a perfect opportunity to dip my toes in!) I am very eclectic with my tastes. Beck, Gorillaz, Cake. And Iron Maiden, Metallica, Rob Zombie. But also older Daft Punk stuff, Infected Mushroom. Uhh The Cranberries, and some Dresden Dolls. The Killers. The Pillows are pretty rad though I am only familiar with Happy Bivouac. Since I started working from home I’ve been enjoying ambient stuff, lofi hiphop (which is pretty hit or miss honestly) and dungeon synth. Probliknaut (talk) 17:09, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Russian folk music. Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 19:04, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Classic Rock, some J-Pop, some heavy metal and older country. --Get Vaccinated (talk) 19:11, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I listen to a lot of genres. Heavy metal is one of my favorites (though I lean power metal and symphonic but thrash, brutal, and prog are in my library), but I also enjoy jazz, funk, fusion, k-pop, c-pop, hiphop, "classical" music, electronic dance music, various kinds of rock, contemporary pop (i.e. the reviled "modern music"), 80s oldies, R&B; not an avid country listener but there's good stuff in there too. My library is all over the place, ranging from Shakira to Santana to Iron Maiden to Warren G to Youngblood Brass Band to Гран-КуражЪ to Megadeth to to Dua Lipa to Muse to Gustav Holst to Dream Theater to Nu Shooz to Scott Joplin to Wild Cherry to Lye By Mistake to Jeff Lorber Fusion to Hui Ping Lin. I also like foreign stuff that don't get as much scrutiny so songs in foreign languages regularly show up; have songs in French, Spanish, Russian, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and even a few Hebrew and Mongolian. I also listen to vgm but only somewhat occasionally, and I do like mashups. I'm always open to listening to more however! 21:48, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * LGM, gonna have to ask what the Mongolian stuff is. Link? Probliknaut (talk) 23:54, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not LGM, but if you look up the name Batzorig Vaanchig that should give you a decent sample. And for a modern take on Mongolian music, The Hu is also awesome. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい ) 00:27, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't deliberately search and pick out music to listen to. I find the music I encounter when I watch movies and when I travel with someone who plays music while they're driving to be enough. I really like the music in Night of the Living Dead, Dawn of the Dead and Day of the Dead. I came across some pretty cool C-pop during car drives. LongStylus (talk) 01:18, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

The centers of gravity in my music folder are classic psychedelia from the 1960s forward, British folk rock, pre-electronic goth and post-punk, classical and especially early music, and stoner rock. Used to be a big metal fan until metal was carried away by Vikings. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 13:29, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Lemme check my library....have content by Nine Treasures and Tengger Cavalry, both kinda of hard rock that incorporates traditional instruments we associate with East Asia. 17:01, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Classic Jazz pieces: Bill Evans—Blue in Green; Miles Davis—Flamenco Sketches; Wayne Shorter—Infant Eyes; Chet Baker—Alone Together. I also like Mexican music and Greek Music (see Imambaldi and Café Instanbul in particular). Others: Brahms, Lee Scratch Perry, Townes Van Zandt (lungs), Jodi Mitchell, Laura Marling. Leucippus Salva veritate 17:10, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I mostly like electronic music of various styles without vocals. This includes music which is either game music or reworking thereof. For example, here's 33 minutes of rather 80s-sounding four-to-the-floor style music. Oh, and since the resident zombie enthusiast is also in this thread, here's a different album by the same remixer (Luke Jansen) that made me think of zombies, though it's more about a twisted hell-world. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 17:44, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Richard Cheese is the best. Dutchbag (talk)
 * My musical interests are pretty varied from classical to folk, rock and even some punk/post punk, metal and of all things country. It's also generally pretty old and almost all the bands I listen had started (and possibly ended) their careers before I was born. The top (English language) artists and bands I enjoy currently are Pink Floyd, Leonard Cohen, Beatles, Green Day (well, just American Idiot but still) and Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds. There's a wide list of others though, some of whom you might detect by looking through my user page histories. 14:26, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * two tone ska, bit of punk, bit of new wave, bit of this, bit of that, bit of everything but limited to a group or two of any particular genre/scene. been listening to some kid creole just recently, the jam is always in rotation - special mention to eton rifles, the damned jetboy/jetgirl, there is no filler on bronski beat's age of consent, bedsitter by soft cell is little too close home to enjoy but i do, love smiths but cant listen to them (fuck you morrisey), irish trad grabs me the way ska does, but only the dubliners (the pogues arent trad saw em live on st patricks day with my flatmate and his mum), enjoyed electroclash for the five minutes that was a thing, basement jaxx, daft punk, slow hands by interpol and only slow hands, the kinks, sunshine superman, a smattering of hip hop (that period of my life a bad time and lot of it just leaves me cold as result. and it just aint my scene, tried to force it, didnt work, trying to fit in with friends who turned out not to be your friends doesnt end well.). eric b and rakim a notable mention. oh, and bizarre ride to the pharcyde. everyone loves blondie. rudie cant fail. ra ra rasputin always gives me a big smile on my face, i dont care what anyone says. AMassiveGay (talk) 01:49, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

/r/detrans promotes conversion therapy
It seems like /r/detrans is pro-conversion therapy banning all non-gender affirming care which is the best known model of treating transgender and non-binary people. Instead of affirming their transness, they're going to repress their identity. The transphobic discourse can be read here:

https://old.reddit.com/r/detrans/comments/gxixl3/conversion_therapy_or_other_options_like_that/

https://old.reddit.com/r/detrans/comments/g1uma6/bill_c8_in_canada_banning_conversion_therapy/

For them, gender transition is conversion therapy despite no scientific research showing links between legitimate transgender care and conversion therapy. Can we write more about this topic in Draft:Detransition, Gender transition and TERF articles? Bhp99 (talk) 10:22, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Transphobes are having a field day with the Chris Chan stuff
I found out about it because someone commented about the Glinner post. (For those out of the loop, notorious Internet personality Chris Chan was arrested on suspicion of raping her elderly mother). 00:25, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * So... which prison should a trans criminal be forced into? Should a pre-op transwomen go to a male or female prison?  What if the person is nonbinary or gender fluid, what then?  00:46, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * What are you driving at Moose? Do you think accused rapists should be placed in confinement with the opposite sex? By sex I mean the plumbing thing.Ariel31459 (talk) 01:22, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * No, I’m talking about how internet trolls are using the Chris Chan case to imply or state that all trans people are just as messed up as her. I put the Glinner piece in clogs. 01:52, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This whole thing seems like a dumpster fire. What little I know about her is from the days when she went by masculine pronouns and was an obnoxious enough personality in the tabletop community to warrant a 1d4chan article (which has now been cleansed by the Emperor’s holy fire on account of unspeakable heresy. The Emperor protects).


 * I’ve been trying to read up on incest laws to form an opinion on this, but I can only manage a few seconds at a time. Are they alleging that her mother was an unwilling participant (shudder) with these charges? Is that the meat of most incest laws, that someone must have been an unwilling participant? Because if it's just the familial (shudder) nature of the act itself, such laws seem almost as out of bounds as their subject matter (consenting adults and so on). What are the outer bounds of these laws: first or second cousins? Because if you go back a couple hundred years, chances are your ancestors were basically the village's previous dozen generations, especially if there was some geographical barrier in play. Artificius (talk) 15:54, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Her mother is weak and has dementia, and the audio evidence that prompted the arrest seems to have Chris confirming that she was molesting her mother. 16:10, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Ugh. So the other line of questioning my brain is getting pulled toward: wouldn't regular sexual assault laws cover the nature of the crimes committed alleged? "Incest" in its disambiguated form always seems to be a taboo, a "crime against nature" which probably ought not to be legislated (let the Hapsburgian results speak for themselves, nature cannot stand as a plaintiff in court). ...Also, I vote for a spoiler bar over this discussion. It seems the sort of thing that could ruin someone's day. Artificius (talk) 16:23, 7 August 2021 (UTC)


 * i heard about this the other day from my flatemate. he didnt say it was chris fucking chan though. incest is crime where they are i read, somewhere, earlier, so there is that. i understand the mother has alzheimers, consent may or may not be of the informed variety.
 * from what i briefly read, this all surfaced from audio conversations, where he was bragging about it all, and that conversation was leaked and led to the arrest.
 * speculation is pointless, but this is an individual who has a long history of saying and doing stuff ridiculously ill advised, with a long of history of people going out of their way to goad and harass them into saying and doing something ballachingly dumbarse, honestly real life physical harassment that was pretty fucking horrible if even a fraction of it was true. if this is all from a leaked audio, it might be just talk from someone who hasnt really shown that he understands what is acceptable behaviour and with their history, its not beyond the realm of imagination that he was goaded somehow to saying some dumbshit. speculation i know, but his previous treatment by people says wait and see. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:38, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * "Some of this isn’t your fault: I mean a man can only take so many wedgies before he goes to pieces." Artificius (talk) 17:05, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Tucker Carlson has now done a segment on Chris Chan on his show. 20:53, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Motherfucking aside, CC does pose an interesting dilemma re. the limits of radical inclusivity and self-ID. How seriously should people take someone's self declaration of gender when that someone is clearly batshit insane to begin with? Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 21:46, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Uh, what? Are you suggesting we misgender someone on account of them having serious issues? 21:49, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm asking if there's a point beyond which the severity of those issues has an impact on the credibility of their self identification. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 22:20, 7 August 2021 (UTC)


 * A rapist is a rapist whether they are straight, gay, bisexual, or any of the thousand other sexual orientations that were made up during the past 5 years. We wouldn't say that Harvey Weinstein was suddenly "not straight" because old rich straight white-ish men don't want to be associated with him.  22:24, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I quite clearly said "motherfucking aside". If true, it's a sufficiently niche crime to be unhelpful in any wider discussion. I'm more interested in common or garden major malfunctions, like CC's obvious lack of self-awareness and general detachment from reality. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 22:44, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * A psychologist assessed CC and declared that CC was mentally female. Ergo, transwoman, no matter how much other transwomen would prefer CC just be "deranged loon" and not "transwoman mother-fucker".  22:47, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The issue isn't the sincerity of CC's gender beliefs. The issue is that CC's sincere beliefs include weapons-grade batshit like Sonichu being a valid creative endeavour worthy of respect and attention, rather than an eye-poppingly shit, car-crash pastiche of two established video game characters. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 23:00, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Waaaaait. The nutjob we are talking about is the Sonichu thing?  And somehow involves Kiwifarms?
 * Fuck it, let's just give this thing a wide berth people. 23:27, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The idea of being assessed as "mentally female" is less troublesome from a sexist POV: "what a mess. definitely female."Ariel31459 (talk) 01:17, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression that was how it worked with GRT. Spend years with a therapist, who use their professional opinion as to whether you truly are transgender, then have multi-step transitions and determine if you need to go on to the further steps, and not all people who transition need to go through all the steps.  First step would be to simply live as female, then if you need more it's the hormones, and then if you need more you go through a series of surgeries.  You don't just waltz into a hospital and say "alright doc, make that sausage into a taco, chop chop!", you need assessments and referrals.  Whether or not CC is deranged, a trained professional determined that, yes, CC was indeed female and would be better off transitioning.
 * As for trans being 'deranged', there is definitely a strong correlation between trans and mental health (MH) issues, but it's not clear that trans is either the result or cause of MH, because being trans does mean you are more likely to be bullied and worse which does increase the risk of MH issues. 02:01, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * There's also a noted overlap between autism and transgender identification, although I don't think anyone has managed to confirm why that is. 03:29, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I thought autistic transwomen was just here? Next you'll tell me there's a huge overlap of trans and anarchists.
 * As far as I'm aware, the body develops based on both genetic code and environmental factors. Sometimes there's an "oops"; a hand doesn't grow right, a girl's ovaries instead grow into testicles, a child doesn't have the nervous connections to all their sensory organs.  Some "oops" are incredibly minor such as being partially colorblind, some "oops" are more serious such as Tay Sachs.  They could simply have the genes that don't code for seeing color or hearing or so forth.  There could be chemicals such as alcohol or thalidomide causing some "oops".  It could just be the mother was older which increased the chance of an "oops".  Too much residual testosterone in the womb is believed to cause male babies to become homosexual, somehow.  We don't know what would cause a severe autism "oops", but I'm sure it could cause other "oops" as well.  If that "oops" was that a healthy female brain grew with a male body (or healthy male body with a female brain? Not really too sure), well, I don't know enough to say that it'd be impossible.  04:35, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Regarding autism and transgenderism (if that's the term), my pet theory (wild mass guessing) is that autistic people are more concerned with the facts than their consequences as compared to NT folk. If those Etheridgian feelings arise, there isn’t a strong executive (functioning) voice and its attendant bureaucracy pruning them before they rise into our general awareness, and less cognitive dissonance after. If this were the case (again, WMG on my part), and whatever biological factors led to the autism couldn't be shown to directly affect sexual orientation and gender as well (these are all polygenic, so more power and good luck to the lab coats), it would imply that the rate of comorbidity of LGBTQ orientations and autism represents a sort of natural baseline of queerness, that “actual” LGBTQ folk would be far more common without the persistent stigma or whatever other social mechanisms reinforcing their straight presentation (most wouldn't even be aware of those parts of them), things you tend to be blind to if you're also on the spectrum (lucky you!).


 * I can’t speak much to the queer side of this "hypothesis" (and it seems so elementary someone writing a doctoral thesis must have explored it somewhere by now), but my own anecdotal experience paints the relationship with the facts as being a key subjective difference between autistic folks and NTs/other neurodiverse conditions (Neurotypical family: “We’re not poor!” Myself: “Yes, we are. This is the federal poverty line, we made this much last year, so we’re poor by definition.” “Look at all our stuff!”). Artificius (talk) 17:39, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 'Nother thing. How is it that no one has mentioned that the evidence in question was a recording posted by Kiwi Farms?  Only just found that out; mentioned KF because that's the only reference we have to Christine Chandler on this site, but reading more the news all points to KF.  This case just gets more and more disgusting, and I honestly would not be surprised if the recording was partially fake.  00:08, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * ive pretty much said as much above. i do note however that it is all speculation at this point. that said, what kind of case can be made if the sole piece of evidence implicating chan is is them confessing/bragging about the crime in a leaked recording of a phone call, and is also the sole piece of evidence that a crime had taken place at all?
 * and adding to speculation with what i said above about harassment and goading chan, there is this
 * and i really will leave it with that to let it all run its course, else i am contributing to all that harassment with idle speculation AMassiveGay (talk) 10:46, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I highly doubt that the evidence is fake in this case. The original "leaker" wasn't connected to KF, KF merely was able to find other evidence to back up the claims. Tldr; a random person on the internet leaks a recording of CWC admitting to an at the time anonymous individual that they have been having sex with their mother. Josh, the owner of KF, corroborates a circumstantial email exchange he's had with CWC about CWC having finally found a girlfriend a few weeks before. Everything else is just layered on stuff of another person (who was planted around CWC by Josh?) managing to get CWC to admit to the same thing. Basically, I highly doubt that it's fake, but we'll have to see. From my understanding there are two confessions; one in audio, one in text, and the latter can easily be found through a phone sweep. Techpriest (talk) 12:08, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * ok, so 2 confessions of from a vulnerable individual with a long history of being harassed and trolled. the years long cruel exploitation of this persons mental disabilities, continually being goaded and encouraged to do all manner of ill advised and humiliating things that sounds almost if not in fact criminal levels of abuse and harassment. i dont believe it would be too difficult a task to get CWC to say just about anything you wanted to, and i do not find it hard to believe people around them would and could maneuver them to a place where they wind up boasting of incest with their mother. they are not confessions knowingly given by a reasonable person of sound mind. whether cwc was just saying what people wanted to hear, or they really did do why they said, those around cwc are going to have to answer some questions AMassiveGay (talk) 13:11, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I also doubt it’s fake. However, i imagine the defense will argue that the tape should be inadmissible evidence due to the strong possibility that Chris was manipulated or entrapped into saying this stuff. Given what Chris Chan trolls have done in the past, it’s a distinct possibility. Whatever probative value the audio has is outweighed by the source being colossally untrustworthy. 13:18, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I don't even think you'll see the tape used. CWC has a case of severe foot in mouth syndrome and cannot lie to save their life. They'd pretty much admit to doing it when placed under the slightest bit of pressure from a police interrogation and are self-absorbed enough to not listen to their lawyer to shut the fuck up. You'd not even need the tapes to begin with. That is without even needing to get into the fact that the standard procedure for all this is from my understanding is to make use of a on the victim (in this case CWCs mom), which would almost assuredly turn up proof if the assumption that CWC had sex with their mother as much as they claim they did. The defense attorney will most likely be begging to get CWC to accept a plea deal of any kind. Techpriest (talk) 13:51, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Quick question: How do you define that someone's mind is "mentally female"? Like what does that even mean? SixtyNine (talk) 01:07, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a question for a psychologist, but generally, men and women have slightly different brain structures, and a transwoman may have a male body but for unknown reasons the brain developed to be more feminine than masculine. 21:05, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Eh, that's more of a neurology centered approach. Psychologically, their thoughts/emotions/internal conception of self may correspond more with a binary feminine than a binary masculine. 14:31, 11 August 2021 (UTC)


 * For the record Chris Chan has said publicly that he only became trans to and I quote "Hook up with hot Lesbians chicks." so I would say that is relevant to the above discussion. As a person with autism, like chris chan, I hate the all or nothing nature of the "inclusive left". It's not fucking transphobic to condemn rape. But you wouldn't get that feeling if you look on twitter with prominent leftists defending them like Xanderthal and Vaush. This community is a moral vacuum where it doesn't matter what you do (Unless you are a right wing trans person) people must respect a trans person even if they do something utter deranged and vile. Like holy shit your not arguing for tolerance your arguing for a cult of blind following. What Chris Chan did was a crime if the Trans community wishes to defend that, then they deserve the hatred levied their way.72.194.188.98 (talk) 15:42, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Citations please. Also, neither of those figures is a user on this site, nor do they, to the best of my knowledge, read the talkpages or the saloon. Ergo, presuming you are correct (which you would need to prove) your moral condemnation means nothing. 16:25, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It's also stupid, as more lesbians will hook up with a cisman than with a transwoman. 16:48, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * "Prominent" "leftists"? Chris Chan, until the arrest, was a minor media figure. About 16K subscribers a few months before the arrest in the Reddit, for instance. Vaush has 45K subscribers Reddit / 365K Youtube. Xanderhal has 62K Youtube. These aren't nothing, granted, but please stop pretending that "the left" is a couple of Youtube personalities. It would be like assigning the entire right wing to, say, Baked Alaska who no one outside of Youtube politics really knows anything about. Politics on Youtube is a minor league sport, anyways, childish goofy shit is what gets the view counts there. Even if an actual prominent leftist, like say John Oliver (8.75 million subscribers, with four videos over 30 million views), says something, it doesn't necessarily represent the full spectrum of "the left". (Hell the same even goes for Angry Baby, he's not the full spectrum of the American right, no matter how much he wants it to be so.) One person's opinion doesn't mean shit, from my perspective, if Chris Chan is found guilty of his alleged crimes, his gender really doesn't matter.
 * At any rate, I can't even find anything in Vaush's feed that resembles anything that you are talking about. The one tweet I found suggests that Vaush, like myself, doesn't really give too much of a fuck about Chris Chan drama (from my perspective, I don't know who Chris Chan is, and don't care to know). So I suspect you are just concern trolling with whatever imaginary boogeyman is in your head (or you are just shitposting to support your transphobia). Maybe you can change my mind with an actual reference. My guess is the odds are low of that happening, though. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 17:48, 11 August 2021 (UTC)


 * "How seriously should people take someone's self declaration of gender when that someone is clearly batshit insane to begin with?" —— 
 * I, for one, definitely agree we shouldn't take seriously the self-declaration of gender by cisgender people who are clearly batshit insane to begin with. For example, the briefly internet-famous fake goth: I'm not really sure what this person's gender is. Also anyone who self-identifies as an "adult human female" is clearly not in a state to be believed and should be treated as gender-neutral. —— ThisIsMyRealName (talk) 07:48, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I might have missed a meeting along the way, but I was under the impression that a cisgender person's gender was - by definition - an established matter of fact, assigned at birth, and then lived and experienced without any further issue or internal dilemma. That minor point aside, you're doing brilliantly at being funny on the internet and I'm genuinely excited at the prospect of you sharing further examples of your repartee. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 13:27, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * cisgenderists are those of us who believe their genders are determined by the color of forest fire their parents set off before they were born. Postmodern neo-cisgenderism is a form of apophenia or pareidolia, like astrology, only less scientific. As a scientific rationalist, by contrast, I understand that my gender is Fire Rabbit, and my pronouns are aqua/rius. No, I'm not a furry. Gender isn't inherently sexual, you pervert.
 * In all seriousness, just go watch ContraPoints. Natalie Wynn at least gets paid to degenerates like you. In chronological order, allow her to destroy you with facts and logic:
 * The Aesthetic 21m23s
 * Pronouns 31m56s
 * "Are Traps Gay?" 44m53s
 * Gender Critical 33m49m
 * Cringe 1h23m19s (which directly talks about Christine Chandler)
 * J.K. Rowling 1h29m45s
 * Since you have the leisure time to post here, you clearly have time to watch all of the assigned video readings before you respond. I expect a 250-word discussion post regarding each piece in the class Confluence forum before the end of next week.

=== Notes ===

Don't use fucking notes or fucking references when you write in the Saloon Bar again. Spud (talk) 08:09, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I’ve just nowikied them, easier that way. Christopher (talk) 08:17, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

OK. I'll get right on that "video reading" assignment. Rest assured it has my fullest attention. You should probably check back here several times a day until my reply appears. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 01:08, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Incest is best, put your sister to the test
That reminds me, what is the non-religious "rational" stance on/against incest between consenting adults? If it's because of the risk of birth defects, how does one not logically conclude this applies to any coupling between people that have a comparable chance of birth defects, or perhaps argue that people with genetic problems be barred from procreation? If it's just because "ewww!!!", how do we determine which things are gross enough to warrant laws? E.g., someone finds the idea of Stan and Harold together, looking longingly into each other's eyes, sweat dripping from one to the other's virile chest, Stan brushes Harold's hair behind his ear and leans in... to be super sexy an abomination unto the lord, and thus just as "eww" as incest, does that mean we also have the right to force young men to be just as miserable as I was when I was their age and had to break up with Stan ban homosexuality? 18:07, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The worst thing I can think of about incest, aside from the genetic stuff, is that there's an awfully good chance that there's an abusive power dynamic going on. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 18:33, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Genetics is a bit eugenicsy (isn't it?) and assumes incest is procreative. Finally sibling-sibling doesnt have the problematic power dynamics. Some countries do allow consanguine relationships including France iirc and in Germany an adult sibling couple got put to jail for... Liking each other, which caused an ethics council to majority vote on a position to legalize such relationships. 18:47, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * (EC, also, we mention the same couple)
 * In the event of an adult and child, sure, I'm assuming coercion until proven otherwise, but I'm not sure this couple in particular, where the siblings first met as adults, is inherently abusive. 18:48, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * To be extremely frank, this relationship seems okay and these people should not have been put to prison for this. 18:50, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Can't want for the reveal of the Incestuous Pride Flag. I nominate that the stripes instead be some sort of weave, maybe even the "Cool S" pattern we all doodled in school.  Quick googling shows a bit of humor regarding the CSA battle flag; I second the motion to make the ol' Stars n Bars to be the new flag of incestuous pride.  19:01, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I despise incest because it is basically almost always the result of grooming and always results in imbalanced power dynamics that threaten everyone's family lives as well as their personal ones. The exception is if two same-age adults meet each other after having been separated at birth, but even then it's disgusting and shouldn't be accepted. (Also, I propose that the Alabama flag be the incest pride flag). 19:05, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Hypotheticals and rare edge cases aren’t a good basis for a legal system. In the real world, incestual relationships are pretty much always highly dysfunctional and abusive, there is no reason to legalise them. Even if you disagree with this, a discussion about an insane person who raped his dementia-suffering mother isn’t the best place to make your argument. Christopher (talk) 19:10, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't want to legalize incest, I want a strong argument against it that doesn't depend on "eww gross!", "it produces an inferior race!" or "as the good book sayeth". 19:13, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * @Christopher—the royal family called, they want their legal practices back. Leucippus Salva veritate 19:45, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm quite sure those are all cousin marriages at the closest. A half cousin would share about 1/8 your DNA, and a single cousin 1/4.  However they were often double cousins (cousins through both parents), which would be 1/2.  A full brother is also 1/2.  Hmm...  19:57, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It does start to stack up though. After some generations of cousin and uncle-niece marriages, you’ll get a poor cursed creature like Carlos II. I can only imagine it only would have gotten worse had he not been born impotent. 20:22, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Only half the kids have problems, and you could solve the bulk of the problems by simply choosing the healthiest child as the heir instead of just the eldest, regardless of whether the child is deformed or healthy. Cleopatra was even more inbred than Carlos (and married both of her brothers at one point), but while her beauty has been exaggerated she certainly was neither hideously deformed nor mentally deficient.  20:44, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * From a purely Benthamite perspective, especially given the availability of birth control there... really isn't a strong argument. It relies on intuitive notions of human disgust, partially out of the fact that birth control was not always so readily available (same reason we still crave sugar and savory flavors in food, availability of them had dramatically changed), and partly I'm sure it's because the majority of us grew up with our siblings and therefore call to mind the ; to imagine someone doing that would be to imagine ourselves override a pretty powerful ingrained psychological barrier. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい ) 21:16, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * As much as I hate how districts in Alabama vote, can we not disparage the people in that state please, especially with the cheapest and laziest joke about them. I also have hard and also frank questions: again, the whole same age adults loving each other, why is that an issue, again. I'm seeing just appeal to disgust. Hell why should they even have to be separated to begin with. Do you want to see this couple in Germany in prison? Even if they knew each other as siblings since they were kids? Did they hurt anyone. And if you're going to say "well their kids" you're going the eugenics route. We already have laws in place to deal with abusive relationships, but the very act of two consenting adults, particularly siblings, is not abusive in of itself. As for "power imbalance" are we going to stop 20 and 40 year olds from also having relationships? 23:26, 11 August 2021 (UTC)


 * It is hard to read deeply into any issue that you know of based on surface level reports. Regarding the Patrick Stübing case, it seems like the surface level summary is "a child fostered at a young age due to an alcoholic abusive dad later marries his mentally disabled sister". Which... isn't exactly a good sounding read, honestly. I can give you my legal thoughts, which says that prison is a crude tool for this and shouldn't be used in this case for sure. I can also give you my personal thoughts too, which revolve around the mentally disabled and consent issues, and admittedly are extremely cynical and hopefully wrong, but a hanging question mark in this case. This relationship also reportedly resulted in four kids, most of who have multiple developmental issues. Set the law aside, the choice they made is not the choice I would make. If you feel this is an appeal to disgust or eugenics or whatnot, well, that's an opinion too. And I admit that from news reports you aren't going to get a deep understanding. They should be able to do what they want, of course, as long as it is truly consensual. My negative opinion is only a negative opinion based on the surface you see in news reports. But "my opinion was asked", so here it is.
 * There is a difference, of course, between law and opinion. Legally a 75 year old can marry a 21 year old, however society tends to frown on that, because power dynamics are often in play in this sort of relationship (not necessarily abusive, but still). So... PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 23:58, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I see, but we can agree prison isn't appropriate. I feel the discussion around being mentally disabled should hinge around that sort of thing and there is a question regarding the morality of having kids with developmental issues. People, however, seem to overexaggerate the effects of mental health; I'm not saying they're serious, but they act like they're better off dead or should be aborted at birth (veering off into another topic). Down syndrome for instance, people have this idea they're crippled and debilitated and have short unhappy lives, but no, with care and attention, I recall they can live long and be happy humans. Anyhow this is probably better suited for debate space and not a discussion as a follow-up to the situation above. 00:05, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * (EC) P1: p-(Incest leads to an increase in the frequency of recessive alleles in the gene pool) AND q-(recessive alleles have a higher propensity for causing serious diseases—via harmful mutations—than dominant alleles).
 * Normative premise: The fundamental maxim of the medical profession is ‘first do no harm’ OR we ought to minimise suffering.

Allowing incest relationships that bear children will lead to an increase in the prevalence of harmful mutations in the gene pool, which will increase suffering. Therefore we have a moral obligation to prohibit incest OR to prevent reproduction amongst siblings. Leucippus Salva veritate 00:12, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * (Fuck your edit conflict) Just my opinion, the older or more dominant sibling in an incestuous relationship 100% deserves prison. The younger was groomed into it and is thus a victim. 00:14, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * People are hardwired against incest. If it happens, it’s because one of the partners is a sick fuck who is abusing and grooming and manipulating a lesser partner to fulfill a sick fetish. They deserve prison for that. 00:16, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * We have a nature reserve over here (you should definitely come visit btw) it’s got two things in common with Alabama: one is ‘white’ the other (a contender for worlds best dad) Fritzl style. I’ll give you two clues: “er hello…hello? Can we please have some assistance on … 3, and I am a 70s horror flick—what am I?  Leucippus Salva veritate 00:23, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * And if they're twins? I'm basically on your side, for the reasons I explained above, but it is important to go through every possible scenario. I can't find it now, but Jon Haidt (I know he's much maligned on here, though he made a good point here) discussed this and how the refutations only amounted to appeal to disgust. (Here is a decent explanation of what I'm getting at, goodness knows no amount of moralizing will ever get me to see the appeal of it!) The Blade of the Northern Lights (<font face="MS Mincho" color="black">話して下さい ) 01:53, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure "people are hardwired against it" is a good argument. I would also argue that most people are "hardwired" against same-sex relationships, but we generally don't say homosexuality is inherently wrong.  02:07, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I said it was the best argument, not the definitive argument. The absolute best I can muster is that the Westermarck effect is something that has deeper evolutionary roots than other taboos (for instance, 90+% of the sexual encounters male giraffes ever have are buttfucking other male giraffes, yet giraffes don't fuck their siblings), and that is doubtless related to the genetic defects that occur with inbreeding in just about every species (the exceptions are all insects). This is one where I'd take the L for logic, the same way Nino argued for originalism even as he readily admitted it failed in the case Brown vs. Board of Ed; he argued that he was right as long as his position led to a logical conclusion more often than the other possible positions, and although I decidedly don't share his positions I think he was onto something (a certain Canadian trio put it best, "I believe in what I see, I believe in what I hear, I believe that what I'm feeling changes how the world appears"). The Blade of the Northern Lights (<font face="MS Mincho" color="black">話して下さい ) 03:06, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I’m not even trying to make an argument. I’m staying what I believe. Incest is evil, and the people who initiate such abusive and degenerate relations, inevitably by grooming a helpless family member by taking advantage of familial trust, must be punished without mercy wherever they are found. 05:47, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * What makes you think every incestuous relationship is evil, Duce? This is just an assumption SixtyNine (talk) 07:59, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

The only problem I have with incest (apart of course from my intuitive "ewe" reaction which I am fairly sure is a reasonable evolutionary instinct) is that two things are avoided: So yeah, if there is no question to consent and at least one of them are fixed/sterile, then I have no moral problem with it. I would imagine it will be quite a few decades until (if ever) public opinion catches up with this enough for the law to change. Shabi DOO  12:52, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Non-consent. As others have said before, an imbalance in power dynamics or outright rape are well documented issues of abuse when it comes to incest. If this is absolutely fully avoided then on to step 2
 * Possibility of conception. Birth control fails. One of the partners should be (at least temporarily fixed) with a 100% chance of no conception. I know it seems unfair as non-related people can have babies which may have genetic problems however that is extremely difficult to control (and would have tons of human rights issues that would be difficult to overcome). However with directly related partners, it is extremely easy to control and the odds of having a child with notable birth defects are high. It seems fairly easy to control.
 * The problem with that argument though is that there are people with their own severe heritable disabilities, and no matter who they procreate with their offspring have a huge chance of receiving similar disabilities. Or perhaps it's two deaf people falling in love, which is a recessive trait ergo the kids are all but guaranteed to be deaf.  Sure, it's difficult to control for recessive genes, you don't go to a party and drunkenly take a genetic test before hooking up in a bedroom, but there are genetic diseases that are easy to spot and control.  The same goes for severe mental health problems, which are generally not just heritable, but something like 50+% heritable.
 * Furthermore, if you are concerned about incest monster-babies, you are implicitly stating that some people are "worse" than others. I don't know if that's a stance you feel comfortable with.  13:47, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, there's a difference between "coercion" and "choice". Government planned eugenics is one thing to be avoided. But many couples want to ensure that their children are born healthy. is absolutely a thing, and that includes checking risks for having a baby with health problems based on certain genetics. Many couples planning to have children will factor in other biological factors, such as age or health conditions. This isn't "worse" or "better", this is just what the biological odds says. And the biology of very close incestuous relationships (in particular parent-child or sibling-sibling) suggests increase risks of problematic recessive mutations. There is no worse or better, this is just biology. You can use this information or not use this information. From my perspective, most couples would prefer a child that is born healthy. Most couples will also accept a child that is not born healthy as well, but if people didn't prefer the former, things like genetic counseling would not exist. Of course, even "choice" can be a moral minefield, particularly when dealing with choice based on superstition or society tradition (see ). In a case of a (relatively rare) non-abusive incest, this is probably not one of these minefields. I imagine I would largely leave it up to the couple. I have a personal opinion on the choice depending on how the genetic odds fly, but I am not them, so who knows? PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 14:22, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * But that is deciding on "worse" or "better". You don't get to redefine "worse" just so you can avoid the unfortunate implications that come along with it.  14:25, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I'm not really the one deciding "worse" or "better" in the end. Molecules, genes, cells, frankly they don't give a fuck about what anyone thinks, they just are. Albeit in a fuzzy manner I don't think we completely understand, which is why genetic type information is typically not informed by certainties, but probabilities (eg: you will get something like "because of gene XX and XY the probability of issue A is Z%", not "don't fuck your kids will be cretins"). Couples however will absolutely use this information to decide what is "worse" or "better" for them, whether you like it or not.
 * One difference here is each individual will have a different viewpoint of "worse" and "better". Many of the "unfortunate implications" of eugenics came from forced coercion (or worse) brought about by political leaders with simpleton understandings of biology, often "informed" by superstition, society tradition, or outright racism, who had absolute certainty in biology, even if they were Dunning Krugers. It's not that "choice" has moral minefields, especially as we get further down the technical road, it definitely does (genetic editing, mmm, what a delight that minefield will be!). But it's a different, more complex minefield than the that 1930s eugenics brought about, as long as governments don't get any funny ideas about modern biotech that is. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 15:28, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

the popularity of incest themed porn on pornhub would suggest to me that a lot of people are more open to the idea of incest than they are letting on. they are publically 'eww' but when left alone they have their hands in their pants. and its never been a problem for european royalty in the past, to varying degrees. and taken to the extreme in egypt when brother and sister would be married to each other to ensure power stays in the family. probably an aversion for incest is partly due to marrying off your kids to outside the family brings material benefits from wealthy inlaws. your kids keeping it in the family wont bring any new wealth or allies into the clan. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:56, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Also I think the creators of Rick and Morty are more into incest than they are admitting. SPOILERS AHEAD.  In the Citadel episode, one of the Morties says "I wish incest porn had a more mainstream appeal, for a friend".  At first it's just a joke, but then they created what is widely considered to be the worst episodes of the entire series, where Morty and Summer create a giant incest baby.  Not willing to let that die, a few episodes later they decided to bring the giant incest baby back and give it a name.  I'm starting to think the creators really do want to see more incest, it's just "want some incest, hahaha it's only a joke, want some incest?"  15:07, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Corrupt user, I explicitly said that it would be much easier to control genetic problems with babies via incest than it would be for people with other problems (as per your example of two deaf parents). I said to control people with genetic issues would be very difficult and have all sorts of obvious human rights issues skirting with eugenics. It would be a whole lot easier to make a law covering incest (assuming incest was ever legalised in the first place), not only because familiar relations can be easily demonstrated (while genetic and physical problems like genetic diseases is harder or may require forced invasive medical procedures). The odds of producing a baby with serious problems is VERY high with a brother and sister or child and parent. Yes, I would argue that if you can easily avoid procreating with your brother and sister or child or parent (by being sterile/fixed or procreating with someone else or adopting) to avoid what is a very high chance of a baby with serious physical and mental life challenges...I do not think it is a good idea. That is not to say that those who are born with life challenges are less, but taking away a high chance of serious life difficulties when it is easily avoided is not an unreasonable moral imperative. This is very likely why we have an intuitive revulsion to incest (something avoided in "most" of the animal kingdom as well unless not easily avoided). These problems do not just affect one generation but potentially multiple generations to follow and multiple generations of incest can make things far worse. Shabi  DOO  15:19, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The reason, or cause, for why incest tends to be avoided throughout the animal kingdom is that it leads to offspring that have poor adaptive fitness. Furthermore, the reason the majority of us react with disgust to incest is because us Homo sapiens and our genes that make up the current gene pool, do so because those genes (including our inherited neural dispositions that prompt reactions of disgust and aversion to incest) were best adapted to the environment, which lead to those genes maintaining the highest frequency in the gene pool. What we have is a blurring of the is/ought distinction: the gene pool is a fact of nature, and yet, it has norms—which cause genes that are best suited to the environment to increase in frequency over time, and consequently harmful mutations tend to decrease in frequency over time. Incest leads to serious genomic defects; fortunately, however, throughout history individuals with these genomic defects have had a pathetic but praiseworthy tendency to die before reproducing their kind. Leucippus Salva veritate 16:37, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * But that's just it, you aren't choosing the same child with lower risk, you are choosing a different child that is more likely to come out healthy.
 * As for ease of control, sure, I don't know whether I have some recessive gene or if a girlfriend has the same defective gene and we have a 25% chance of a monster-baby, but most mental health issues are heritable. Virtually every personality disorder, NPD, Bipolar or BPD, they all seem to be 50% genetic, and we absolutely could control such problems with ease.  Should someone with not just a few but a plethora of disorders be prevented from procreating too?  This isn't a hypothetical, we used to sterilize people at insane asylums and prisons.  Actually, no, that's wrong, we still do that.
 * Genetic testing isn't free, but it's much, much cheaper than it was 30 years ago and becoming easier each year. At some point, it really will become super-easy to control, it might even become easier to detect than accidental incest with a half-sibling or half-cousin you never met before.  16:52, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you honestly believe that expecting people who know they are closely related to not have sex if it could lead to a baby is easier to control than expecting every single couple about to have sex that could lead to a baby to have blood tests and do genetic tests to ensure they are compatible? Honestly? Shabi DOO  17:01, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you are asking the reverse; 'do I believe it's easier to control unrelated people with genetic testing than siblings'.
 * My answer is multifold. First, "In many diseases, not yet, but it could be, very, very soon".  Second, "with some diseases, yes, it doesn't matter who the affected person procreates with they are just as likely to have a disabled child as two random siblings."
 * Furthermore, I don't think incest should ever be legal, but I don't want the argument against incest to be entirely predicated upon "there's a risk for genetic defects" unless we plan to go down the road of "well, since this coupling is likely to produce defects, that coupling is also likely and should be banned as well". My base reasons against incest really are "eww!", "gross!!!", "the fuck is wrong with you sick bastards?!", but that is also the same argument against a lot of LGBT stuff.  17:08, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * But the offspring of an incest couple are not equivalent to individuals with mental disorders or, more generally, the majority of humans that make up the current gene pool. Incest offspring have a multitude of genetic problems that aren’t present in someone who has a mental disorder or heart disease per say. One of the greatest achievements of mankind was the mixing of genetically dissimilar individuals—within cultures and across cultures. Moreover, the mental illness that arises in the majority (I.e. excluding genuine, incest offspring) of the current population, arises in people that are, by virtue of their ancestors evolutionary success, naturally fit . Your argument borders on a ridiculous false equivalence between highly genetically unfit individuals viz. incest, and individuals who are mainly genetically fit with some minor irregularities. Indeed, be it mental illness or be it a propensity for cardiovascular disease or be it a propensity for Parkinsons—all of which frequently occur in otherwise ‘fit’ individuals—each of these disorders and illnesses contribute to the resilience of the human species via individuals overcoming or finding ways to live with their disorders or illnesses, and finding solutions to the problems these illnesses or disorders cause. The same cannot be said for incest, since it leads to offspring who are so genetically deviant that they will likely detract from the overall health of the human race.
 * Finally, you can’t seriously suggest that diseases such as Cystic Fibrosis should not be managed for in the gene pool by gene editing (bear in mind that Cystic Fibrosis is caused by recessive alleles). In addition, one need only look to the high frequency of rare diseases caused by recessive alleles, that are present in the Ashkenazi ethnic group to gain some idea of the effects that incest could have on the human race as a whole. Leucippus Salva veritate 18:08, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking about "general anxiety and need daily zoloft" levels of mental health problems or the general population, I'm talking "only reason not in institution is because Reagan closed them" mental health issues.
 * Also, it's not a guarantee that incest-babies are disabled. It's 50% on average for any disability, but varies from couple to couple and that 50% doesn't account for the severity.  In the Steubing case, the mother already had some disabilities (making the father even more... ewww), and 2 of the 4 children had "severe" disabilities and a third needed a transplant, but the 4th came out relatively ok.  As far as I'm aware, in the Fritzl case the six (grand)children mostly turned out better, well, ignoring the whole ultra-rapey (grand)dad and torture.  There was a 7th that Josef murdered at birth, possibly due to deformities.  The whole thing was just... eww...  19:22, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Corrupt user you aren't doing a good job today at reading what I am saying. I said there were two things that concern me about incest (not just the problems with offspring) which including problems with power-dynamics/consent. So no...of spring is obviously not the only issue (as multiple users have discussed consent and power-dynamics so far. In any case, it is hard to believe that you seriously think that enforcing laws against siblings who know they are one another's siblings and have sex (even without the intention of procreating) and almost certainly know the risks of having their baby is just as easy as enforcing every single person who may have a genetic issue (knowingly or not) asking any potential partner if they have an issue, running that through a database of potential issues that an offspring could suffer (assuming they are even trying to have a baby in the first place which is still a possibility if birth control doesn't work) or even prove that two people having sex knew that their own issues could result in their child having an issue and then 1) take blood tests and genetic tests and consult a doctor if there is a chance their baby could suffer serious problems and 2) Have the government go through the extremely complex and morally difficult process of deciding which potential birth defects are too high risk and prohibit. That is ridiculous. Restricting non-fixed or sterile brothers and sisters from having sex leads to a MUCH less slippery slope than commencing limiting say two parents with serious mental problems that are likely to pass it on to their children. It is also far more difficult to police and prove that they knew beforehand the risks. It is far easier to take something that is already legal and legalise it with limitations to avoid children with serious birth defects than to start making something that is already legal (just about anyone else having babies) and engaging that terrible slippery slope to eugenics and the awful problems of enforcement and prosecution.

In any case, if a brother and sister are independent totally consenting adults with no power-imbalance and one of them is sterile or fixed...then what reason would there be to not allow them to have a relationship? Why should this very specific consensual no-risk act of sex be illegal? Shabi DOO  20:06, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Because it disgusts me and I want it banned, and there's not enough people arguing against me. But I admit that that's the same argument against Homosexuality and Trans issues.  There's also the risk it's a wedge issue; allow in this case, then allow in cases where there's low risk of birth defects, or allow in cases where they met while teens, or allow if they have genetic screening and abortions in event of defects, etc.  00:58, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * "Because it disgusts me and I want it banned". This guy gets it. 01:00, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, how do we prevent an argument from extreme disgust from also applying to anything else that might offend the majority of the population? 19:50, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the question being faced here is one of practicality versus theoretically. Theoretically speaking, yeah there is a specific exception case where incest is not a problem. Practically speaking, this flat out happens so extremely rare that it becomes an insignificant factor or isn't illegal in the first place (if you don't think power dynamics affect a brother/sister relationship, you're probably an only child, siblings have ridiculous power dynamic weirdness, in the case of parent/child the dynamic is obvious and cousin-fucking isn't illegal in most places from what I know; don't fuck your cousins though). Like, the only case where there is no power imbalance is with separated at birth twins, and most countries have special exemptions in place for that situation (which is extremely rare to begin with). The other difficult question is if you should make it legal for the government to sterilize people to enforce this kinda clause, which is historically rooted in transphobia and homophobia. It's easier to flat out make incest illegal than have to question things like "should we legally mandate sterilizing people who want to fuck their siblings", which will draw a lot of ire. Techpriest (talk) 20:11, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * So basically, the same as statutory rape laws. Sure, not all 20 year olds are emotionally nor mentally mature enough for a sexual relationship, and somewhere out there there's a 14 year old girl who is mentally developed enough for sex, and there's some hypothetical scenario where a 14 and 40 year old are "soulmates", but we simply set the age to 17 years old and just assume that a 40 year old guy that's sleeping with a 14 year old is a rapist.  Otherwise we would tie up the courts.  23:46, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Apparently a white supremacist Texan girl is behind this
So, only now I had time to read about the whole shitstorm. Apparently 20 yo sociopath white supremacist girl is the "mastermind" behind this (although, granted, she didn't forced Chris Chan to rape her mom, just gave the "idea). I even though that she might be missional (there are many other disturbing stories about her, including animal torture and forcing a "friend" to commit suicide), but writing about her is probably a bad idea because 1 she'll be forgotten soon and 2 she became a lolcow herself and is already being doxed and trolled. GeeJayK (talk) 15:38, 25 August 2021 (UTC)