RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive314

Are nouns illusory?
It came up in a discussion. The point being made is that since things are changing all the time that it’s not right to use nouns to refer to then as some kind of fixed and permanent things but to use action verbs to do so. Like thinking, working, etc.

Doesn’t make sense to me since those are actions. A noun doesn’t imply the object is permanent or doesn’t change.Machina (talk) 02:41, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the site I got it from was actualized.org.Machina (talk) 02:47, 25 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Reductio ad absurdum: One should scrap pronouns too, since they stand for nouns. One should next abolish verbs, since all actions are finite. Obviously, then, adverbs and adjective are meaningless since they modify actions and things. Conjunctions and prepositions are just artifacts to explain actions and things, which leaves interjections as the only sensible part of speech. Ugh! CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 03:12, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * My head hurts.Machina (talk) 03:27, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * A temporary state, I hope! CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 03:32, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * How do nouns imply permanence?? 15:07, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * They don't, it's prescriptive linguistics based on weird ontology at its very worst. The same "school of thought" probably took ayahuasca and now wants to ban tenses. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 17:09, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * TO them it implies a fixed point, but I never heard nouns defined like that. I was thinking it refers to essence, but I don't know either.Machina (talk) 17:46, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Fainali, xen, aafte sam 20 iers ov orxogrefkl gramer riform, wi wud hev a lojikl, kohirnt speling gramer in ius xrewawt xe Ingliy-spiking werld. Bongolian (talk) 18:03, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

The argument is a non sequitor. 1 Things are changing all the time. 2 Therefore we shouldn't use (presumably any) nouns. Does 2 really follow from 1? Hubert (talk) 21:28, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thinking; set Query: Are all the questions... editing... Thinking as if asking if the... asking is...  Always... from actualized.org?  Shit, there I went, using actualized.org as a noun.  Look, is everything always from actualized.org?  Are you soft-sponsoring these guys? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:00, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not, but much of my headaches came from that place. It's like they question everything but don't want answers to those questions and when you question their mystical experiences or the teaching they read then you are accused of being a materialist or wrapped in ego (ironically most "materialists" I know are honest and don't claim to know things they have not evidence for). But that's kind of where I got the "nouns are illusory since they aren't a solid, fixed, and unchanging". But even after reading that I couldn't shake the strong sense that something was SUPER off about that.Machina (talk) 06:05, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Those sensations are your bullshit detector going off. Even in the best of us it isn't 100%, but the willful ignorance and aggressive response to being questioned that you refer to in your second sentence put a stong confirmation to that. I've not been to the site myself, but if I accept the stuff you keep posting here as representative then I feel confident in saying that the site is trash with nothing of intellectual or philosophical value.
 * I have notice a pattern in your threads about this stuff. You come across some idea on their site; you feel it doesn't make sense but somehow also that there is something of value to be gleaned; you post here asking for explanation/insight; various people look over what you ask about and find it to be ... flawed. Rinse and repeat.
 * Your mistake (as I see it) is allowing your BS detector to be overruled by an inability to just put this stuff in a category called "Useless Dreck That Makes No Sense"
 * If you have read pterry's "Thief of Time" you could make the comparison to the Auditors finally finding a way around logic-bomb orders by creating the new category of orders that are "bloody stupid and can safely be ignored."
 * Your recent threads have been indicitive of the cognitive equivalent of trying to adhere to the instructions of "..signs that point right but say "Keep Left"..
 * Daev (talk) 03:39, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

The problem I have is that I don't know how it is false, I just have this notion that something is off or mistaken I just don't exactly know. I know verbs are actions, that nouns are objects and living creatures than change. It just doesn't make sense to call them verbs, but I don't know exactly HOW that is so. You it's the BS detector but isn't the rooted in culture and our preconceptions of what we "know" to be so based on what we grew up with?Machina (talk) 23:17, 27 June 2019 (UTC) Like how can nouns be nouns when they are changing all the time? IF they aren't fixed points then what are they? Why call something a "thing" if it isn't permanent? What makes a these thing different from the verbs we use if both refer to dynamic processes? This is that kind of stuff that troubles me. People say he is wrong but don't tell me exactly how he is so.Machina (talk) 00:29, 28 June 2019 (UTC)


 * There is nothing false about the perspective that everything is dynamic, so that reality is a infinite process of becoming. You can think that if you want to do so and that is true. You may be told you are being incoherent. The grammar of language describes reality not to perfection, but for the benefit of human understanding.  Verbs refer indirectly to actions, they refer directly to the actions of objects identified by nouns. Verbs are of no use without nouns because a verb requires at least one noun to have any useful meaning. When you are running, or thinking, or standing, that is you, running, thinking or standing. You are growing old as you run, think, or stand. So, you are not permanent. Have a cup of tea.Ariel31459 (talk) 02:47, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * _
 * Machina, re: "The problem I have is that I don't know how it is false"
 * That is not the problem that you are having. You did know how it was false at the top of this thread ("A noun doesn’t imply the object is permanent or doesn’t change").
 * The problem you are having is that you are convincing yourself that there is some sense to be found in nonsense. Maybe from some benefit of the doubt thing - "So much effort put into his site/argument; surely he has something meaningful to say."
 * re: "People say he is wrong but don't tell me exactly how he is so."
 * From what I can gather, he is starting by conflating the concept of (eg) a cow, the sound made when referring to that concept, and that particular not-yet-steak standing in a field. Kinda-sorta unintentional Equivocation if you will.
 * re: "it’s not right to use nouns to refer to then[sic] as some kind of fixed and permanent things but to use action verbs to do so."
 * Use action verbs to refer to anything mutable, rather than nouns. Okay then.
 * "I poured hot water onto some jelly crystals, stirred and chilled the result for a few hours. The liquid became a gelatinous solid, which I then ate."
 * What would these two sentences look like if one were to stop using nouns and just use action verbs to refer to things?
 * It would be nonsense.
 * Daev (talk) 07:19, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I think this can be done, and some nonsense is always a hard point. If we could, as an exercise, remove nouns from language only to reintroduce them, we have an illusory definition of nouns.  Now, to redefine all nouns, we would  have to kick out the noun "purpose."  So whatever is left exists outside of its noun. So what is left of whatever is left?  What is desired from whatever is left?  And if whatever isn't a noun, what did we, as nouns, spend all this time talking about?   The premise is... not good, but the intention is... vague.  And the results are all around you.
 * For the skimmers, language is an exercise in describing perception. It seems inherently illusory to me.   Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:35, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I was more like looking for HOW it is false, because I don't understand the how behind it.Machina (talk) 04:43, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, that's pretty simple, if we're still talking about the same thing. Noun, intending an object, i.e. eggplant may take on a... mantle (an important role or responsibility that passes from one person to another) but in the end may still always somehow quietly be an eggplant.  But I'm thinking maybe I have no idea what you're talking about?  You mean I'm supposed to tell you how language is not illusory?  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:04, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Not exactly, more like how calling nouns illusory isn't true and using verbs instead wouldn't make sense because verbs are useless without nouns.Machina (talk) 19:58, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

this guy is a new agey life coach and charlatan. hes just repackaged ideas from a variety of sources with enough vague babble to convince those susceptible to this kind of thing that he has some sort of valid insight or can reveal deep mysteries in a bid to create some kind of cult. he apparently is even suggesting usage of psychotropic drugs when using some of his resources. nothing at all brain washy about that. you achieve nothing from trying understand his psychobabble except fuel his narcissism. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:54, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I know I tried to argue against what he said on his forum but I just didn't have the know-how to do it, plus it was kind of filled with his fan club and they all insisted that personal experience trumped my reason or logic.Machina (talk) 19:59, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Fucking no goddammit
Illusory does not mean "not held to a sufficient degree of rigor in all cases". It means perceptions that do not align with what's physically present. Nouns are: abstract, socially constructed, natural language, subjectively inclusive, and many many other things that are not strictly compatible with notions of absolute material truth. They aren't fucking illusions goddammit. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * But they change all the time and are not the same from moment to moment, how does that not make them verbs?Machina (talk) 19:40, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Aaaand, you've lost me. Verbs are important to describing action, but verbs don't change their utility.  I mean, what if I told you every verb was just an adverb?  Would you be as upset as I am just lodging that statement?  Verbs explain how nouns act.  Nouns can be acted upon, but never intend or attend action, that's why we have verbs in language.  I guess a more nuanced question would be how gendered nouns in Roman/Latin languages might influence perception, but this is beyond the pale, nouns are not verbs.  We might grab a noun and start using it as a verb, but that doesn't make the word any less of a noun.
 * "This sentence is being written only to dispute a misunderstanding" can be read as "Noun qualifier & noun, passive verb statement, part of speech & prepositional statement, verb, noun." You are not exactly a noun.  The language you use about yourself needs "you" or "me" as nouns, it's not...  It's not that the concepts are immutable, the language requires it.  I mean, the word "verb" is a noun!  That should have been the first trick you learned about English.  "You" can still grow and change and still be "you," this is silly and a poor use of language. I can't help you with these people. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:39, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Penis Envy
Why are women envious of dick? Bonesquad11 (talk) 03:07, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see why I want to have a not-fully-developed hydra head sprouting out my crotch. 04:19, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * This is the best medical description of a penis. 15:08, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Men compete at length to see who's hydra head is longer by a few centimeters, it's a sight to behold. — Oxyaena   Harass  17:15, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Probably because it's ugly, unwieldy, serves only shameful purposes, and yet somehow all us men still absolutely LOVE waving them around! High five!  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:04, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * There is literally nothing worse than having a piece of flesh hanging off my body that never seems to be in quite the right position...RipCityLiberal (talk) 16:00, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The original posting is based on Sigmund Freud's statement - and he was suffering from a severe case of womb-envy. Anna Livia (talk) 16:25, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. This is a very leading question. And also, yes, Freud was wrong about just about everything. It's seems unlikely that he happened to get just this bit right.Hubert (talk) 19:57, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Pfft, somebody hasn't taken their cocaine today. Once I was walking home, heard the deep "Thud thud thud-brr" of a subwoofer in a trunk. Waiting at the intersection, I saw a bright blue Honda Accord, medium sized spoiler, windows tinted blacker than midnight.  The driver side window was cracked, and a huge billow of vape poured out of it.  When the light turned green, it skittered off... pretty quickly, I'd say, nothing special for an Accord, with a short tire screech and the "thhhhbbbBBBTTTT" noise that normally comes out of motorcycles.  Exhaust must have been modified, but hell, I'm trying to cross the damn street, I'm not gonna look at a muffler.  I said to myself "Damn, I wish I was that guy.  But I'm too self aware." Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:11, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

A good way to describe homophobia
"I worry all day every day about what goes on in the bedroom between two consenting adults who have the same gentiles".

Sound right? --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 03:08, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * More like anything that is different must die.Machina (talk) 03:32, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I don' usually point out this kind of error on talk pages and the like. But this time I think it's important., you meant "genitals", not "gentiles". Besides which, I'd say there a lot more to LGBTQ identity than who you like to have sex with. So, no. It's not a very good description. Spud (talk) 06:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, I should have phrased it "One of many ways to describe homophobia". I go to explaining something but in my head, it works but when I say it, type it or write it, what I mean comes out wrong. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:07, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It's also pretty cisnormative. 17:25, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * But do you worry about what goes on between two consenting adults with the same Jews? That's the real question here. 17:25, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * To Jew or not to Jew, that is the question. — Oxyaena   Harass  21:01, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Right, but what if one tries to sneak into my head and make me a Jew? Best to outlaw them.  And why are they the only ones who get to wear those awesome little hats?  Not that I'd want to, but truth be told, if I could wear a Burkini you might catch me at the pool.  But I'm not allowed, so let's hate them ladies too.  All... going to the pool... like their religious fear of showing their bodies has some kinda workaround that doesn't include my fear of showing my pallid, hairy torso so they can enjoy themselves.  Why I oughta....Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:12, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Why you oughta embrace Christ. — Oxyaena   Harass  08:55, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

The purpose of life found?
Personally I think there is no purpose to life, and yet:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PjZB9CoFfs

Stuff like this worms it's way into the discussion sooner or later. Aside from the obvious holes (like what is meant by "improvement", which is a subjective term), it just seems like a way to avoid having to deal with the lack of inherent meaning in life. I would wager it's some kind of last ditch effort by the subconscious, though I don't have evidence to back that.Machina (talk) 04:07, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Waiter, waiter! There's a purpose of life in my word salad. 2A02:C7D:1635:5C00:9E2:3B47:D026:B241 (talk) 14:06, 25 June 2019 (UTC)


 * "Meaning," and "purpose" become anthropomorphic when applied in this way. The human realm is a small part of the universe. "What is the purpose of life?" is like "What is the purpose of the stars?" The question is incoherent. There is no inherent meaning or purpose in anything that does not originate in human minds. Have a cup of tea.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:45, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * And what of the GIANT paragraph saying otherwise or the youtube video?Machina (talk) 17:50, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The argumentum ad magnum: if it's big, it must be true! (The converse is the appeal to tl:dr, which states that any argument too large for a lazy person to read can instantly be rejected.) CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 18:41, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The answer is 42 of course. Anna Livia (talk) 22:52, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Isn't that also the answer to "How many roads must a man walk down before you can call him a man?" CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 02:38, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * If a tree falls in the forest, and there is no-one there to hear it, does it make a sound? This is where it gets hypocritical, even for me to respond to. Humans can't know the point, but this human knows the point? Maybe it is bigger than that, as he says, but this guy will tell you exactly what the point is?   80k views, at least it's not violent.  So, the idea that the utility of consciousness is to observe the universe isn't new.  But that's a pretty bold use of the word "purpose" we got going on here  Consciousness can observe the universe without purpose.  These intentions and "musts" for existence are totally arbitrary.  This does smack of the other things you've brought up, like Grant Morrison believing that the universe is comparable to a comic strip, but then also believing that creating a comic strip bleeds into and affects some higher malleable timeline.  Psychedelics are fun, and having purpose is a good feeling.  But this is all blown way out of proportion and works only on a "need-to-believe" basis.  Having some kind of grand personal experience does not make that experience factual outside of your own existence, even if it can be described and explained.  I have conversed directly with plenty of people who believe their personal, undeniable, hardly explainable brushes with the greater purpose.  Generally, defined by their vision of God, it is enough for them to say anyone who doesn't see it barely bleeds.  One of the most sincere, gentle, and God-fearing people I've ever met tried to lay-hands faith-heal me one time.  It's fine, hold on to that meaning, but that burning need for everyone to feel the love of God like you do, it's not good.  If God existed and wanted to be seen and understood, there wouldn't be much of a debate about what God is, would there?  Or is it that this one guy, after all the millenia of people seeing and understanding God better than anybody else only to be brushed off as crazy or burned as heretics or die alone without their message heard, is it this one guy who figured it out?  With this message of "consciousness allows that members of the universe can observe the universe" therefore it must be God?   Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:54, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Personally to me it just smacks of being unable to cope with the unyielding nature of the universe to just "give" and answer. It's like screaming into the void and expecting a reply. Why is it so hard to accept that there is no purpose or design to all this (as far as the evidence shows)? Why is it so hard to accept that things just happen? I mean it wasn't easy for me to accept it at first, I had to feel like there was some grand design to it all. But I am SLOWLY coming to terms that maybe there isn't and all that it amounts to is just my misguided attempts to project onto things. Yes there is an "order" to things (in terms of natural laws and behaviors). Of course they would ask WHY the laws and things behave in such a way, my answer would be they just do. IT doesn't imply design. I know it's hard for our minds to process such a thing, such an array of interactions happening without consciousness. But evidence shows that the universe didn't come from nothing (as far as we know), hence no "creation". The thing is an hour and a half and I don't feel like sitting through it just to find out what he means.Machina (talk) 06:13, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Not knowing the answer is the first step in the scientific process. Finding a way that should disprove your hypothesis is the second step.  Actively trying to disprove your hypotheses is the third step.  Retesting is the fourth.  Interpreting the results is the final stage of grief, I mean the scientific method.  Cajoling yourself from interpreting data a certain way all the way to disproving/accepting that you didn't have it right is a lot of work, and it's hard to do on your own.  Especially hard if your group says there's something wrong with testing its tenants.  There are always people who invalidate that process, it sucks when they are your friends.   Again, I would suggest you take a breather from these guys. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:16, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

twitter troll?
Hello all I am new here. I found this tweet and don't know what to make of it. https://twitter.com/BaddCompani/status/1143016312030945280 his twitter account is full of things about "watchers". he said he would tell all but decided to do that tomorrow. what do yall think is a troll just looking for attention? Gzstg (talk) 16:45, 25 June 2019 (UTC)


 * QAnon CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 12:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Qanon "guru". Solution, ignore. 16:54, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Project Veritas
Have you guys seen the project veritas video? At risk of being the next UT do you guys see this as a really threat or just fake news? linkCommie Lib (talk) 17:34, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Probably fake news. This is Jen Gennai's response. The smart money, based on Project Veritas's track record, is that Jen Gennai's account is far more truthful. Soundwave106 (talk) 18:36, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Frankly, James O'Keefe hasn't said or done an honest thing since June of 1984.--NavigatorBR(Talk) - 19:04, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You mean the group known for selectively editing their ACORN and NPR vids, entrapping PP employees, among other deliberately unethical practices? HARD. PASS. I'll be honest, I'm more than a little appalled this was even a suggestion. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 19:06, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah I'm a bit skeptical too because of the whole new york post debacle and they seem to be professional concern trolls. Commie Lib (talk) 19:31, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "do you guys see this as a really threat or just fake news?"
 * Why it has to be either a "real threat" or "fake news"? There's a lot in between. I haven't watched the video yet. I heard it's about Google injecting their political agenda into their algorithms. The video might be fake, edited selectively, or what else... But is there really somebody who believes that any tech company with such a power as Google wouldn't do that at least a bit? Thinker(unlicensed) 20:50, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok do you believe Veritas is engaging in fear-mongering or not. Commie Lib (talk) 20:51, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "do you believe Veritas is engaging in fear-mongering or not?"
 * It can be that Veritas in engaging in fear-mongering (the action of deliberately arousing public fear or alarm about a particular issue) AND that Google is manipulating its algorithms with a political purpose. Thinker(unlicensed) 21:03, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * IMHO most of the "social media CENSORSHIP!" crowd falls into two camps. The first is those that either act like an ass or post too-lewd-for-Youtube type of entertainment, get kicked off, and then sometimes complain about this thinking their opinion got them in trouble. (When in reality it was posting lewd material or acting like an ass.) The second is those that actually want to believe fake news, and thus complain when big social media actually shuts down a trollspam account. (I guess the later is a little bit political due to how fake news probably helped Donald Trump get elected.) Occam's Razor suggests big social media largely tries to manipulate its algorithms for financial purposes. Soundwave106 (talk) 21:23, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Etika has officially died...
His body was recovered from the South Street Seaport in Manhattan, and was identified by the NYPD just today. All signs point to him having committed suicide.

Etika's passing should be a reminder to us all on the effects that social media can have on one's mental health. Etika was a man who just wanted to do what he loved and stream it to the world, but constant harassment by fans and his outlet being shut down multiple times led to his psyche deteriorating, culminating in his suicide.

Please, if you or someone you know is having suicidal thoughts, contact the Suicide Prevention Lifeline. Your life matters. -- LCRex  (poses menacingly)  22:12, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * To Etika's family, friends, and fans: I`m sorry for your loss. — Oxyaena   Harass  10:48, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

issues of trans or minority ethnicity when you are neither
I increasingly find myself arguing over issues that effect trans people or people of colour. I would hope I do on the 'right' side and I would hope that at the very least I am not insensitive in the way I do.

however, I am neither of these things. I am a 6'4, blue eyed, blond (some would say albino) male - physically every inch the image of an aryan ubermensch - i look like a Nazis wet dream. i'm even rocking a skinhead right now. I do not and cannot, argue from a position with any direct experience of the things I am arguing for or against.

I find this unsettling. it makes me uncomfortable. I worry that when arguing on behalf of people who are not like me in some fundamental ways, that I do so presumptively, in way a that is both inaccurate of the experiences of those people and is insulting to those people. it feels sometimes to me, dehumanising, like I am not talking about actual human beings but an abstract idea of what I believe people to be, especially when discussion concerns general ideas rather than a specific person or event. I worry that distance from the subject makes me miss some vital information or overlook important nuance.

I am truly not fishing for compliments here, and in truth not sure what I want from posting this, beyond knowing whether this is a normal or indeed common 'feeling', or at best, just an assurance that am no jus pouring salt onto wounds AMassiveGay (talk) 11:49, 26 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Caring about the rights and dignity of others is probably a sign you're a decent human being with empathy, more than anything else. Even if you have no direct experience of the matter, you have probably undergone parallel experiences. While you cannot speak with authority to these specific situations of others, I don't believe there's a limit to how and when decent people can step in to repudiate intolerance/bigoted hypocrisy. A shining example is David Futrelle, a white cis man who covers the incelosphere, and does a great job of it. (And as an aside, I have little time for transphobes/TERFs, xenophobes, and racists -- and I am a 6'3" white cis agnostic guy.) CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 13:24, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Gotta remember folks like y'all are generally the only type white people even listen to. Once you break the initial resistance, your voices are the ones that carry the most. RipCityLiberal (talk) 16:02, 26 June 2019 (UTC)


 * You people are effing tall. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 16:01, 26 June 2019 (UTC)


 * When would you stop thinking of human beings in terms of the "groups" they belong, and when would you start thinking of them in terms of their actions / ideas? If you are talking about something related to black people, let's say police racial profiling, it has no relevance if you are black or not. What matters is: Is your data correct? Is your reasoning correct?
 * And don't tell me about (lack of) personal experience, because personal experience is the most misleading thing when it comes to understand reality. Stick to the data, stick to the logic. If your arguments are correct, it doesn't matter to which group of an arbitrary classification you belong. Thinker(unlicensed) 16:14, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * — Oxyaena   Harass  16:32, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Is it sealion season again? Tinribmancer (talk) 17:23, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes UT, cause it's not like logic or reason was ignored to exclude groups of people based on arbitrary classifications. FOH --RipCityLiberal (talk) 17:07, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * This kind of advocacy happens in all sorts of forms, not simply in terms of one group advocating for another, but in legal contracts and personal relationships as well. Lawyers argue for their clients' best interests, parents argue for their children, friends can argue for one another, etc. In all of those cases, we can overstep "good faith" when we essentially argue for what we want rather than what they want. This is, of course, a continual possibility, since we never have perfect access to the mind of another, and there will probably always be some slippage. But this kind of advocacy is still important.
 * I favor the idea that even where we may not be able to perfectly capture another's experience, we can still sympathize: I can relate your experience to myself in some way, and generate a fellow-feeling as a result. You and I may be white, but I can hear the descriptions offered by non-white people about discrimination in various forms, big and small, and imagine how I might feel, and use that to help inform my perceptions of the legal system, language, etc. From there, to avoid being overly presumptive and falling into the trap of transposing yourself onto others, it's necessary to go further beyond your imagined experience to determine whether your own reaction is right or wrong. As an example, a man could try to imagine sexual harassment and claim that if he were to experience it, he would just leave the company and find another job, thus illustrating that it's not a real issue. But further examination would reverse this position, since the potential difficulty of finding a job, the possibility of similar behavior occurring at the new position, etc., would make this seemingly simple solution untenable for many. It's being able to take that second step that is important.
 * In a roundabout way, of course, this doesn't really solve your problem. There's always that possibility. Not being an advocate isn't exactly the right solution, though. Instead, the solution is to make sure to be gathering information and always re-checking your conclusions. Especially if you know members of these communities and can test your conclusions with them. But that's ethics at the end of the day: doing the right thing requires constant work. --Mabian (talk) 16:18, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, if minorities or trans people are ever bothered for you fighting for them, like you misunderstand key details about their experiences, it's up to them to inform you. But I'm pretty sure most know you bear good intentions and are willing to correct any sort of insensitivity you express. I can't say about discrimination on my part as race, since I pass as white (but not entirely white) but I can talk about how uncomfortable I feel sometimes around male-dominated clubs and I have to be constantly wary about guys who want to exploit my sex because of the paucity of females in the environments I attend and the constant objectification women experience. I feel very uncomfortable at the idea that if I go public, I'll receive ugly attacks on my appearance or sex life at a higher degree of men, and I wouldn't dare voice chat or gender reveal at bigger gaming communities. Bringing up sexism in gaming is something I never do in gaming communities because I know the responses (like being labeled an "SJW") and I've already seen those attempts. But if other men see what women go through as a serious problem and use research to bolster those concerns, they have no reason to feel bad that they are "white-knighting". Their privilege actually grants something unique to them, that they can validate minority concerns and can be an asset to spread ideas without receiving the brunt of the ugly attacks that women and other minorities get. Don't feel bad about privilege, use it as a strength to support minorities, and if you're doing something wrong, minorities will help you back. 17:22, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm a trans person and I appreciate it. The main issue is that if people of a given group object to the way you are arguing you should listen to them. Minority groups are not hiveminds though, so you have to make reasoned judgements if people are giving conflicting criticisms. Usually people in minorities will have more experience and information. ⏣sapient_cogbag⏣ talk  21:25, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Whoops I meant to reply to the main post. Wiki editing on a phone is distinctly unpleasant. ⏣sapient_cogbag⏣ talk  21:28, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Don't ignore your feelings about your own behavior. I can't imagine a trans-person being offended by your kind words. Imagine someone intervening in confrontation on your behalf. What would you be comfortable with? (rhetorical). Be happy with your responses. Being angry with others won't help them to be better persons. Perhaps one might need to express anger, at certain times. But people must change their own minds.Ariel31459 (talk) 20:28, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

We at RationalWiki are called tons of names- which one should we be?
We have been called evolutionists. We have been called Feminazis. We have been called Bro-Space. We have been communists. We have been called Atheists and we have been called NWO shills (the last one I am not sure of). Which one should we call the wiki? My vote is evolutionists. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 14:11, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Pinko commie scum is my vote. What do you think, ? — Oxyaena   Harass  14:23, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * A bit radical. Leave off the "scum," unless someone really desreves it. nobsI'm all yea'res 19:07, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Seriously, someone called this site Communist? Must be an American thing to descry anything perceived to be slightly left of centre as communist. Reminds me of Michael Franti's original band, The Dispoable Heroes of Hiphoprosy and their song, Television The Drug of the Nation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ky4uYnsF3kc "Most people think Central America means Kansas, Socialism means unamerican and Apartheid is a new headache remedy." Cardinal Chang (talk) 15:00, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * BUT I THOUGHT THIS WAS RATIONALWIKI!!! MORE LIKE IRRATIONALWIKI!!1! Drink! — Oxyaena   Harass  15:14, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yep. Which is funny when we simultaneously get called fascist-adjacent by other people. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 19:27, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * iirc 4Chan, Pedo 8Chan and the Kiwi's have called us cucks (with the latter one also calling us autists, spergs & dropping the F-Bomb) & SJW's... Tinribmancer (talk) 15:15, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * But none of those sites or their contributors matter at all, and their opinions can be completely ignored. Cosmikdebris (talk) 15:38, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Many times I see those attempts at insult as psychological projection. Poor souls. Soundwave106 (talk) 17:04, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * By F-bomb I presume is meant flowers and their seeds or this.
 * Given the diverse viewpoints of RWians, there are many statements about them that will be true in particular examples but false in the generality. Anna Livia (talk) 16:40, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * TERFs called us MRAs. This would've been the stupidest thing if it weren't for multitudes of witty accusations of "IrrationalWiki" or "you are not rational" or "you guys don't use facts and logic", like people who just vomit out the words "rational" and "logic" without understanding what those two words really mean. 16:55, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Have a feeling that all pathetic insults we get could be turned into a drinking game of sorts. Seriously though, not everyone here thinks the same. Generalizations and over simplifications are absolutely pathetic. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:21, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Stop generalizing generalizations. :< 17:24, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I propose "Those Other Guys". Because it doesn't seem to matter if it's far left or far right, if it's TERF or MRA, if it's fundamentalist Christian, Muslim, or Hindu, or any-- any of the various "Conspiracies From All Walk Of Reality™" and the wonderful world of "You Know, That Doesn't Actually Cure Shit"... we're those Other Guys, the ones that can't seem to comprehend their obvious truths.  Kencolt (talk) 19:14, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Probably a little obvious, but wouldn't be be "rationalists" - in the modern meaning of the word.Hubert (talk) 19:52, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Why care what others label "us"? I'm just someone who comes to read RW for different viewpoint, humour, and general reinforcing of my pinko commie scum atheist rational echo chamber view. Aloysius the Gaul 21:17, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * But there's a chance to control it. If nobs doesn't want scum, my first instinct is to say scum.  But let's do it like NASA and backtrack it.  SCUM?  Sarcastic Conveyers of Uusual Monologues?  No, I don't think scum is the right word, but I like it as an acronym. Acrostics are my least favorite form of poetry.Gol Sarnitt (talk) 00:55, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I found us an excellent podcast!
It's called "Behind the Bastards" by Robert Evans. We have really good info here on dictators, Alex Jones, etc., but he's found stuff I didn't even know. Highly recommend. Asaac Isimov (talk) 17:03, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Ben Shapiro is getting kicked while he's down
After Ben Shapiro embarrasses himself after being challenged in a BBC interview, left-tube goes all in on on Ben personally and everything Ben has ever had to say. Pretty good work, I'd say. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:48, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Fiction as being real in other universes?
Hey, I have a question.

I realize this is unfalsifiable and unscientific, but could fiction theoretically be real in other universes? Like a universe where Zelda is real or something?

I don't claim that this is fact. I merely think this may be a possibility.

Also, I am FuckingForgotMyPassword. See the username for why I'm using a different account. &mdash; Unsigned, by: CuriousIndividual / talk / contribs
 * Thinker(unlicensed) 07:19, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I kinda said that I knew it was unfalsifiable. User:FuckingForgotMyPassword
 * Have you been reading Grant Morrison? Dendlai (talk) 08:03, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Never heard of him. User:FuckingForgotMyPassword
 * It doesn't really matter that this isn't scientific, since this properly belongs in the realm of philosophy, not science. — Oxyaena   Harass  10:31, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Having the Earth being someone else's storyverse might well explain some of the weird things going on :) Anna Livia (talk) 11:40, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * If the idea that we're all just characters in a novel and don't know it was never put forward by a noted philosopher, I'd be very much surprised. Spud (talk) 13:04, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Descartes touched on something similar, a precursor to this proposal. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 14:27, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Just imagine the evil demon and God sitting in a bar room together.... — Oxyaena   Harass  14:32, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The Book of Job but with more swearing. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 14:54, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Two pricks sharing a beer together, what could go wrong? — Oxyaena   Harass  16:45, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * When you say theoretically, I will assume you mean according to scientific theories. The many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics says that for every chance occurrence in quantum mechanics, say whether a photon would reflect off of a partially reflective surface or pass through it, there are two worlds: one where it reflected and one where it passed through.  Even with this though, the laws of physics, so far as we can tell, would not be changing.  However, the appearance of the physical laws could be quite different.  At the very small scale, a quantum foam is theorized to permeate reality.  A this scale tiny particles and photons are constantly popping into and out of existence.  The quantum foam is entirely random as far as we can tell, and could have effects on the macroscopic scale.  A universe could theoretically exist where saying "Incendio!" is followed by jets of fire spewing all over the place, just by chance.  There is a probability (although laughably small), that this would happen every time anyone says "Incendio" while holding a wand shaped object in this universe.  Further, according to the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, this universe must exist, however unlikely.  The laws of physics of this universe would not actually be different, but it would appear different.  Any arbitrary fictional world could appear to be real according to the many-worlds interpretation.  MirrorIrorriM (talk) 16:11, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It's just interesting to think about! Hannasanarion (talk) 17:16, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Eh? I can't tell what you're trying to say here. FuckingForgotMyPassword
 * Welcome back, or whatever? Pot, pleased to introduce you to kettle.  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:37, 28 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Some fictional universes could be physically/naturally real, but we don't really know what's possible beyond what we're familiar with in our own universe. In addition to naturally existing universes, there's also the possibility of artificial universes constructed to imitate fiction. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:C93E:519:E1F1:948D (talk) 16:28, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * No complaints, I think what BoN is trying to touch on here is that if it's possible to create a fictional universe, if it's possible for us to create a fictional universe in which it's characters do not see their own universe as fictional, but can also recreate fiction within its own parameters, possibly with a perceived level of autonomy that the characters, by design, cannot comprehend, it's possible we are living in a created universe. While I doubt this is currently happening to us on a existential/technological standpoint, I think it's worth applying to morality and our control over it.  Resident nihilist here. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:30, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Every Trump supporter is a white supremacist...
...according to ravelry.com a website for knitters and crocheters:

"We are banning support of Donald Trump and his administration on Ravelry. This includes support in the form of forum posts, projects, patterns, profiles, and all other content. Note that your project data will never be deleted. We will never delete your Ravelry project data for any reason and if a project needs to be removed from the site, we will make sure that you have access to your data. If you are permanently banned from Ravelry, you will still be able to access any patterns that you purchased. Also, we will make sure that you receive a copy of your data. We cannot provide a space that is inclusive of all and also allow support for open white supremacy. Support of the Trump administration is undeniably support for white supremacy."

Thinker(unlicensed) 16:33, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, it's true. — Oxyaena   Harass  16:42, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * There is an unfortunate correlation between "strong supporter of Donald Trump" and "strong online asshat shitposter" in Internet land. Reddit recently quarantined r/The_Donald, for the not entirely unreasonable reason that some posters were threatening police officers in a current Oregon political snafu, and this was part of a repeated pattern of violent content and rule-breaking behavior. (Reddit's actually shown amazing tolerance for r/The_Donald IMHO.); places that actually allow violent threats and whatnot (your 8Chans and Gab) have gone on to be linked with terrorists and hate crimes. Personally, if I ran a service, I wouldn't ban "Donald Trump supporters", but I certainly would ban asshat behavior. Like I've said elsewhere, there is a certain class of Donald Trump supporters who will act like an ass, get thrown off social media, and think "Wah! Conservative opinion is BEING OPPRESSED!" Meh... I've seen angry liberals get kicked off social media for asshattery and then also think they are oppressed. Soundwave106 (talk) 16:50, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "Well, it's true."
 * LOL
 * "get thrown off social media, and think "Wah! Conservative opinion is BEING OPPRESSED!""
 * Actually, I didn't think of this "ravelry case" as related to the recent "political bias in big tech" debate. I just thought how extreme and out of this world is the claim that every Trump supporter is a white supremacist. Thinker(unlicensed) 17:04, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh grow the fuck up and smell the crap outside your sheltered fantasy land. Trump implicitly supports white supremacists, just like almost every conservative candidate since the 1940s has. By supporting Trump his base is implicitly supporting white supremacy by default and by extension. If they still support Trump at this point, with all this crap explained to them multiple times, then they are either idiots, in denial, or white supremacists. It's not fucking rocket science. 17:22, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * @ut - that is pure unadulterated bullshit. its not what trump supporters actually think - its irrelevant. it whats they support, trump, and its trump you need to look at. look at him. look at his racist statements. look at his administration. look at its Nazi like treatment of immirants, in particular its treatment of children - it doesn't matter where you are on the political spectrum its inhumane. look members of his administration, look at their unbridled racist statements and actions. it should disgust any one with an ounce humanity. comparisons to Nazis are not godwins here, they are reasonable comparisons of horrendous actions.


 * 'Support of the Trump administration is undeniably support for white supremacy.' this a true an valid statement. its not some arse about tarring people with the same brush - its what it means you support trump, whatever your real views.


 * UT, you complain about people labelling you a racist, maybe should you step back and take a look at what you are actually and consistently defending on the grounds of some semantic bullshit. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:35, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I merely bring up big tech because many of Donald Trump's biggest fanboys online pretty much *are*, if not white supremacist, some combination of that, shitposter/troll, conspiracy fear monger, or toxic MRA activist. And that carries over to smaller social media sites. I'm not in agreement with a Trump focused ban personally, but I can see why it would be tempting for a mod to ban Donald Trump altogether. If only for safety reasons alone, because the type of poster I am describing also tends to be the type that might eventually engage in doxxing and harassment. RPG.Net banned Trump a few months back, this knitting community is not the only one. Soundwave106 (talk) 18:02, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

The UT Trilemma (Stupid, Illiterate, or Liar)
So, UT is one of these things, this is observable fact. Why? Because a comprehensive policy that puts bigger name social media sites to shame is "bad" because it removes toxic discourse. I know, I actually read the policy when it was first put into place. Read it for yourselves and you'll see what I mean. 17:16, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, it didn't take long to personally attack me. Said so, I have no idea of what your argument is. I linked the policy myself and I quoted the relevant section at the beginning of this thread. It says that: "Support of the Trump administration is undeniably support for white supremacy." I believe this claim is false and extremist. What's your take on it? Thinker(unlicensed) 17:23, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Not all of 45's supporters are white supremacists. But the white supremacists sure love 45. I wonder why?RipCityLiberal (talk) 17:25, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * — Oxyaena   Harass  17:32, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * My take is you're an idiot UT, one who either dishonest or willfully ignorant. This exenplafied by you saying something stupid, then being told that it's stupid and here's why, and then complaining that you've been insulted. You may have been insulted, but only insofar as you held a stupid position and didn't like that others pointed out how stupid it is. And for the record, the "moderate" position isn't in-between the GOP and the Democrats, it's the Democrats. You are truly delusional if you think the modern GOP isn't about two steps away from outright fascism, if not closer. In short, you are an idiot not because I state that you are an idiot, but because you say stupid things and hold stupid positions. 17:35, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "Not all of 45's supporters are white supremacists."
 * OK, good.
 * "But the white supremacists sure love 45."
 * That's not true either. Take for example white supremacist . To the question "Are you a supporter of Donald Trump?" he asked: "As a symbol of renewed white identity and common purpose? Sure. As a policy maker and leader? Dear god no." Thinker(unlicensed) 17:37, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * see my post above fucknutAMassiveGay (talk) 17:38, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "My take is you're an idiot UT"
 * The question was: "What's your take on it?" where "it" is the claim "Support of the Trump administration is undeniably support for white supremacy." Thinker(unlicensed) 17:41, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * First off, using individuals to label whether someone is a white supremacist is stupid. Second ...a symbol of renewed white identity and common purpose? sure. That's it, that's the game. It's over. White Supremacists don't have to love what 45 does (they aren't too high on his Israel stuff for one), but 45's actions and rhetoric has made it clear to their ilk that the beliefs and behaviors of white supremacists will be tolerated and to a certain extent, encouraged in this administration. I don't exactly think it's the responsibility of,  or I to show you every single example of 45's actions. Google exists, and the amount of evidence out there is frankly disturbing.RipCityLiberal (talk) 17:48, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh pardon me, excuse me Mr. UT. Please, feel free to ignore the rest of my post. "Support of the Trump administration is undeniably support for white supremacy" Add the word implicit and the answer is yes. Trump panders to white supremacists. Supporting him is implicit support for that pandering. I do believe I explained this before, perhaps you should kindly take your head out of your ass and read what I wrote. It might just help. 17:51, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

"First off, using individuals to label whether someone is a white supremacist is stupid."
 * What does this mean? You said that white supremacists love Trump, and I gave you an example of a white supremacist who does not love Trump.
 * "Google exists, and the amount of evidence out there is frankly disturbing."
 * Ah Charlottesville, when Trump said: "I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally." Yes, Google exists.
 * ""Support of the Trump administration is undeniably support for white supremacy" Add the word implicit and the answer is yes."
 * Add the word "not" and the answer is yes too. It's hardly news that changing a statement you can make it true or false as you like. Thinker(unlicensed) 18:00, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * more semantic bullshit. add explicit, and its still true. add nothing and its still. its a true statement. that's what you are supporting if you support trump. make an argument based on some reasoned logic and drop the semantic pedantry. its irrelevant what trump supporters say they are for when the trump administration is what it is. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:06, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Motherfucker, the person you picked, LITERALLY SAID, White supremacists see his as a symbol of renewed white identity. It's not out of context, it's not up for interpretation, he said it. Also again, none of us are speaking in absolutes here, only you are. We have been arguing that white supremacists overwhelmingly support 45, and 45 has a record of tacit support of white supremacists. Beyond Charlottesville, this administration has mirrored multiple white supremacists talking points related to immigration, religious freedom, criminal justice as well as actively seeking to limit the ability of law enforcement to target white supremacy. Also as commie has exercised a level of restraint I frankly am incapable of in his responses, that are clear and explicit.
 * In summation, fuck you, fuck your racist beliefs, and fuck your support for a white supremacist administration. RipCityLiberal (talk) 18:23, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "make an argument based on some reasoned logic and drop the semantic pedantry."
 * The claim is that "Support of the Trump administration is undeniably support for white supremacy," but the Trump administration never made a single white supremacist legislation or action. Thinker(unlicensed) 18:18, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * if support for Trump is "undeniably" support for white supremacy then why are there african americans, latinos, and asians that voted for him? Yes they are a minority but they do exist. Commie Lib (talk) 18:25, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, . If yall'd stop feeding him he'd go away, the bar was nearly UT free for at least two weeks now. — Oxyaena   Harass  18:27, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "why are there african americans, latinos, and asians that voted for him?" Why do GOP women support ending legal abortion? Why does Clarence Thomas support ending affirmative action and the voting rights act? It's about power. People vote against their interest literally all the time when they believe they will be protected by power. Why trot out such a terrible PRATTRipCityLiberal (talk) 18:33, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

""why are there african americans, latinos, and asians that voted for him?" It's about power. "
 * LOL Blacks, latinos, and asians voted for Trump because they yearn for power! It's amazing what come out when somebody is confronted with non-white voting for Trump... Thinker(unlicensed) 18:43, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I can't find any evidence for that claim anywhere? Sources please the closest thing I found was this [|https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-human-beast/201903/why-do-some-poor-people-vote-against-their-interests]. Also if your being protected by "power" doesn't that mean that you are acting in your best interests. Also this is hardly a PRATT pointing out that members of a group that Trump supposedly despises support him is a real point. Commie Lib (talk) 18:59, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * congrats UT you made an actual argument to couner my point. too bad its dogshit. and when you couple it with the man himself's racism. id suggest you leave off any counter that relies on dictionaries or semantics like you did with the black face discussion - is not convincing. the racism of trumps administration is appalling. and ive not even mnioned the actions of individual staffers, nor is this exhaustive.
 * @commie lib - that's dogshit. I will repeat for a third time - it is irrelevant what tramp supporters think, or what they think of think trump - trump's administration is a racist administration. that is what you support when you support it regardless of your true views. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:05, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You can find examples of black/latinx/asian support Trump if you look hard enough. But the numbers tell a different story entirely.RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:13, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * this is interesting because the same argument was trotted out by ut when we discussed here if maga hats were a symbol of hate (I think I made the same argument that I made here, for the record) during which ut posted a vox video of a group of black people who voted for and against trump. the same video, I believe, that he posted for a separate thread of his own creation to discuss. if that group was at all representative, the reasons for supporting trump were clear - 'fuck you - i'm all right, jack' AMassiveGay (talk) 00:08, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

More pointless semantics
So, if you read the policy annoucment (you know, because otherwise your just pulling crap out of your arse) You'll see that Trump supporters aren't banned, however explicit support for him is banned. So yays, stupid people stupid opinions are protected. It even states not to harass or bait Trump supporters. So... yeah. Toxic subject is banned, just like say death threats or conspiracy theories. The end. 18:12, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "stupid people stupid opinions are protected. It even states not to harass or bait Trump supporters. So..."
 * I never complained about opinions not been protected or Trump supporters being harassed. I said that "Support of the Trump administration is undeniably support for white supremacy" is a false and extremist belief. Thinker(unlicensed) 18:18, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * — Oxyaena   Harass  18:28, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes of course wanting more immigrants from Norway has nothing to do with White Supremacy. Nor does supporting Confederate monuments. Or a ban on Muslims. Or reducing the budget for law enforcement to target white supremacy. Or pardoning Joe Arpaio. Or frequently calling in to a television network and supporting the talent at said network that says diversity is not a strength and immigrants are dirty. Or working closely with a group who's explicit purpose is to reduce legal immigration. RipCityLiberal (talk) 18:30, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I forgot that according to you I am a white supremacist. So there's no way to convince you that, for example, one can think that keeping a historical monument is important, without being a white supremacist. Thinker(unlicensed) 18:38, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It's official, it's sealion season again. — Oxyaena   Harass  18:41, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * A HISTORICAL MONUMENT TO WHITE SUPREMACY. THE FOUNDING OF THE CONFEDERACY IS WHITE SUPREMACY. IT'S IN THEIR FUCKING CONSTITUTION. AND THE MONUMENTS ARE FROM THE 50'S, THE HEIGHT OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT, EXPLICITLY MADE TO INTIMIDATE BLACK PEOPLE.RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:05, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * @Thinker If someone said that they do not like violence, they do not like censorship, they support democracy, yet they think stalin and his rule of the Soviet Union was simply grand, wouldn't that tarnish your perspective of their honesty for their positions on the previous things? (holy run-on batman)  If someone supports a politician in spite of that politician's positions, it calls the person's positions into question.  After all, a politician only matters because of 3 things: Effectiveness at arguing their position, honesty about their positions, and what positions they hold.  You can't in good honesty support a politician whose positions you also disagree with.  So when people see you arguing that not all Trump supporters are white supremacists, they see it being the same thing as claiming that "saying someone who supports hitler is an anti-semite is an extremist position".  It is a contradiction to be both informed, pro-hitler, and not an anti-semite.  Because Trump's actions have so far been very cruel to non-whites (see examples posted above), it isn't exactly a stretch to apply the same logic to Trump's supporters.  MirrorIrorriM (talk) 20:18, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "So when people see you arguing that not all Trump supporters are white supremacists, they see it being the same thing as claiming that "saying someone who supports hitler is an anti-semite is an extremist position"."
 * Well, if they see Trump as Hitler I would say there's a big problem from the beginning of the conversation. Let's put it in this way: Do you think that the claim "Support of the Trump administration is undeniably support for white supremacy" is a moderate position? Do you think that depicting about 40% of US population as supporters of white supremacy is moderate? Thinker(unlicensed) 20:46, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * UT, shut up. Now that you've shut up, read what wrote. Good, now answer the question.  20:51, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * @Thinker Yeah, actually I do. My parents are white supremacists, most of the people at my work are openly white supremacist (although they wouldn't admit as much, but constantly complaining about "black thugs" and "illegal invaders" is pretty much a dead giveaway), and the churches I used to attend were pretty white supremacist too (justifying colonialism as "bringing faith to savages").  Also, to hammer home a statement made earlier by RipCityLiberal about minorities who support trump, keep in mind there was an political movement of Jews who supported hitler all the way until they were sent to camps.  MirrorIrorriM (talk) 10:14, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Polarisation of politics

 * Getting radical here and considering the OP......as an occasional leftist pinko commie liberal-trying-not-to-be-an-arssehole - is it not true that correlation is not causation or something along those lines? I do understand that #45 is a racist narcissistic poseur....  but I do not think that everyone who supports him always supports all of his jerkiness. Aloysius the Gaul 21:02, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * If you support 45, you support white supremacy. There is no difference between the policies and the person because 45 makes everything about himself because he's a narcissist and a wannabe dictator. Tacit approval is still approval, and this administration has made it clear, that among its priorities, is the protection of white privilege and white supremacy.RipCityLiberal (talk) 21:19, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * And that's the sort of polarising attitude that is divisive in politics - you are either against us or for us - no middle ground - you can't say you oppose white supremacy and support trade wars or any other policy. Exactly why politics worldwide is getting more and more divisive and hostile and the nationalist bullshit is on the rise. Aloysius the Gaul 21:32, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That's bullshit. 45 and if we're being honest the GOP, has been poisoning the waters creating hyper partisanship since Karl Rove. There isn't a clear connection to some of the polarization globally (there are other factors like inequality and forced migration that tie in with nationalism and xenophobia), 45 and his white supremacy are deadly. Supporting that on any level is a threat to this country.RipCityLiberal (talk) 21:48, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Nah can't agree with you there - while correlation =/= causation there is a clear connection to worldwide polarisation and Trump, the GOP and US evangelicalism - there are thousands of articles on the various connections [eg here's just 1 and pretending otherwise is less than helpful. Aloysius the Gaul 22:21, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Aw, Trump's not a white supremacist. It's not like he's throwing brown people into camps or anything. 22:04, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * This is basically how I see it. White supremacy is like rape, it's extremely harmful and you're either for it or against it. You can't have a middle ground when the other side wants to kill you for disagreeing. So, with that in mind, any attempt to make a middle ground is basically while playing to the balance fallacy.  22:06, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree - white supremicism is something you either for or against, and Trump is a white supremacist - but it is not the ONLY thing he is - even a narcissist has more than 1 dimension, and my point is about Trump - not just the 1 position of white supremism. Aloysius the Gaul 22:21, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Dude. No. If the number one thing is white supremacy, I don't give a shit about anything else. If the top line is, "I don't think you deserve rights", then fuck that person and everything they stand for.--RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:01, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clearing that up - your idea of how single issues over-ride absolutely everything is exactly the problem. Aloysius the Gaul 23:22, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Donald Trump won the Republican primary by promising to build a wall around Mexico and kick out Muslims. He has continued to antagonize racial-oriented issues that should matter little to national government (eg the NFL flag controversy) and has a tough time apologizing for violent Nazi skinheads in Charlottesville. His approval rating among non-whites hovers in the 20% range, in single digits for African Americans. I think the label is fair. The only consolation here is that he is molding the GOP in his image at a time when the demographics are going to slowly work against his white nationalism style. There is a danger of a Proposition 187 like effect in 20 years, methinks. Soundwave106 (talk) 01:23, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * heres the thing, and what I have repeatedly said, it makes no difference why people voted for trump or still support trump. what matters is they still support someone, who you agree, is a white supremist. they are still supporting a white supremist. and it doesn't matter what else trump is - he's still a white supremist. its a package deal. when they voted, they didn't get to pick and choose which policy they were for which they were against, they voted in support of it all, white supremacy and all. I don't know about you, but to me that's not a 'lesser evil' to put up with to ensure whats important gets through that's a deal breaker. and you know what? I don't hear too much about trump supporters expressing much in the way of disapproval of those policies. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:54, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Ahoy, ! Sheriff Joe says hello! — Oxyaena   Harass  03:33, 28 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Why does it matter if they are white supremacists anyway? Being a white supremacist does not make you a bad person. Some of the nicest people I have ever met are white supremacists or neo-Nazis. They are like any political group, some are good and some are bad. You can't judge a person by their politics. Even if they advocate the holocaust, that is no more immoral than advocating abortion. Statistically the most intolerant people are liberals anyway. 2600:1004:B002:1284:89C1:7070:B943:627B (talk) 04:56, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * — Oxyaena   Harass  05:14, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * UT once again attracts more human filth to his cause. These people are what UT tries to pretend not to be. They instinctively sense their own. 06:08, 28 June 2019 (UTC)


 * If only UT were around when had his "alliance" going on.... What next, is he gonna run for mod like Nobs and RWRW before him? —  Oxyaena   Harass  07:07, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The good news is that nobsie isn't a mod. Just a crank. Tinribmancer (talk) 09:02, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd have made him the Vice President of my Alliance for sure. --RWRW (talk) 11:24, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

"Trump is a white supremacist because something something brown people on the border." (Race-baiting, what is thy name?)

So where were you when Bush and Obama were white-supremacing on the border? 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:C93E:519:E1F1:948D (talk) 13:47, 28 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Bill Clinton literally starved 500,000 brown children in Iraq to death. Wasn't he a white supremacist too then? The reality is that the Democratic base have become insanely liberal on immigration whereas Republicans are about where the center used to be. If anything Republicans have also become more liberal since the 90s, they just haven't turned into complete whackos who want to increase immigration as much as possible and think any restriction is "white supremacy" the way Democrats, especially college-educated white Democrats, have. The polarisation in our political landscape is entirely die to the Great Awokeming and the so-called rise of the far right is an absurd myth. If anything Republicans have also become more racially liberal, just not at nearly the same rate as Democrats. You were far more likely to see a KKK or Nazi rally in 1992 than in 2019, it is complete bullshit media hype that there is supposedly a rising Nazi movement and that Nazis never marched on America's streets until 2017.
 * I think a lot of "woke" people have skeletons in the closet. If you were around in 1997, you probably wanted to build a wall, and were therefore literally Hitler by your current standards. Communism (talk) 16:20, 28 June 2019 (UTC)


 * What is this blather? I smell "same thing both sides". Terrible centrist take here. Bill Clinton didn't run a platform of racism. He's not part of the party that actively tries to disenfranchise minorities through gerrymandering or voter ID laws. He doesn't have a voter base of almost exclusively white people nor did he have the literal KKK backing him nor did he embolden Neo Nazis to use their salute. He motivated a ton of white supremacists to show off their true colors. Neither had a history of racist discrimination against blacks as a business owner. Also, I'm pretty sure those policies were also supported whole heartedly by Republicans, who were the party of stymieng every little petty thing based on their ridiculous and rancid beliefs like climate change denial and trickle down economics. The polarization of politics is mostly caused by the Republicans keeping pushing the Overton Window and getting backlash, with the centrists getting swept by the currents and thinking they're making a ground breaking and thoughtful observation. This "whataboutism" from BoN and drive by is disingenuous as hell.
 * Those that think characterizing Trump supporters are white supremacist are being unfairly stereotyped are missing the point. These people should have the responsibility to know which kind of company they keep. They should have the responsibility to know about the laser-precision racist voter ID laws and the history of supporting incarceration of blacks through war on drugs. And beyond that, what exactly is redeeming about a Trump supporter? Nothing. If they otherwise don't care about a hugely important issue or if they're just complacent they also support tons of other horrendous things. They support climate change denial, they support banning trans people from the military, they support tax cuts for the rich, they support business deregulation that has contributed to the Great Recession, they support banning abortions everywhere and restricting access for overall well being of the family, they support having business owners discriminate gays, they support shrinking our national parks, they support denigrating or dismissing journalists that report on Trump's bad behavior, they support a giant stupid dumbass ineffective and ecologically destructive wall and have a party that is willing to undergo shutdown for it, they support continuing the existing ineffective and disastrous gun laws for "rights" and "self-defense", they support a president that clearly tried obstructing justice several times, they support laughing and denigrating #MeToo (see the Kavanaugh testifier), they support undercutting education with having a charter school shill as part of the administration, they support a corrupt and incompetent administration that has several firings/quitting jobs and indictments and allowing illegal foreign influence on the election. By supporting Trump, maybe being called a white supremacist is charitable: it's only one awful part of being an overall terrible human being that wants to undermine democracy and ruin people's lives through whatever petty single issue shit you have (I'm looking at you, female pro-lifers). 18:28, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * and more importantly, Clinton hasn't been in power for near 20 years. trump is in power. his policies are pertinent. they are current. Clintons are not. they are history. its an idiotic attempt at deflection. don't play that game.
 * also, let me repeat yet again, that it is irrelevant what trump supporters think. if you support trump, you support white supremacy. that's what he is. it doesn't matter if you support trump but not keen on racism, your supporting a racist and his racist policies whether you like it or not AMassiveGay (talk) 12:01, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * As AMassiveGay said, white supremacy is part of the Trump package, supporting Trump is de facto supporting his whole platform, including the unpleasant elements such as white supremacy. 12:51, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Could someone specify how "Trump is white supremacy"? You can credibly call him a racist, but where in his platform does he support white supremacy? I'd just like some clarity on this. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:7498:47D3:9C05:EF95 (talk) 16:42, 3 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Bill Clinton ran on executing a mentally-disabled black man so that "nobody can say I'm not tough on black crime." And when he first got involved in politics was Arkansas in 1976, you don't think the Arkansas Democratic Party in the 1970s was full of segregations and racists? So according to you, all 43% of Americans who support Trump agree with everything you say they agree with? Many of which are positions that a lot of people used to hold, but now you have decided that anyway who thinks them must be an evil, immoral monster. The reality is that relatively few people are ideologically consistent. A lot of younger and more socially liberal Trump supporters are OK with trans people in the military. A lot of less affluent Trump supporters are against tax cuts on the rich. Mass incarceration of blacks in the war on drugs was literally a bipartisan policy, and now there is a strong bipartisan movement to reverse it.
 * As for female pro-lifers, do you know what they actually are? It is low-income, working-class, and Latinx women who are by far more likely to hold pro-life views. Not your cartoon caricature of rich conservative Stepford Wives, or whatever the wives of the ruling elite in Handmaid's Tale are called. (I don't watch that dreck.) While women are slightly more likely to be pro-choice than men, this is only because of rich educated white women, among the proletariat women are actually more pro-life. A recent Gallup survey showed that millennial women are the demographic most likely to favor overturning Roe v. Wade (and based on other data I'd imagine women of color even more so), not "fascist old rich white guys." Why do the Wealthy White Woke think they can tell other people what they supposedly think? 2600:1004:B074:1703:2DE8:E099:A6FA:6F4B (talk) 19:07, 28 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Mind giving us some sources? Plenty of these....um "arguments" are shots in the dark and seem to be nothing but hyperbole's. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:24, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

How many digits could one write in the observable universe
Could the observable universe fit a piece of paper large enough to write a 1 followed by a centillion, centillion, centillion (repeat the word centillion a centillion times) zeroes? ཨོཾ་མ་ཎི་པདྨེ་ཧཱུྃ (talk) 20:00, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * In this thought experiment must the paper remain rigid or are we allowed to bend it, fold it, roll it, crumple it, etc? 20:19, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * How much detail do these digits have to have? There are 10^86 particles in the known universe, and a centillion centillion's would be 10^(303*10^303). If each zero requires 4 particles to draw, and each needs 9 atoms of paper backing in a grid lattice structure, that is 13*10^(303*10^303) particles necessary for this construction. Assuming the atoms are 0.154 nm apart (this is the case for graphite, paper would probably be much less dense), this is a volume of 3.65 * 10^-4 cubic nanometers per atom, or 4.75 * 10^-3 cubic nanometers per letter. The universe is 93 billion light years wide. This is 8.8 * 10^35 nanometers wide. The volume of the universe would therefore be (assuming a cube shape for simplicity) 8.8 * 10^105 cubic nanometers. Therefore you could fit 2 * 10^108 letters into the universe. Far short of the 10^(303*10^303) letters needed. You could not even fit a number with one centillion zeroes in the universe.
 * TL:DR No. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 21:04, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * But, how big are the zero's written? The zero's size of a megapixel or the size of a finger nail? --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 21:16, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll go with the size of a fingernail, oh and, it's not centillion centillion's, I can't type it all out. That's centillion followed by the word centillion typed centillion times, equivalent to phrases like a trillion billion's except unfathomably larger. But ignoring that, I was really wondering how many finger nail sized zeroes I could write down in general, on a flat piece of paper, before it stretches outside of our observable universe, ignoring expansion of course. ཨོཾ་མ་ཎི་པདྨེ་ཧཱུྃ (talk) 21:55, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Make the zero's be fractal and fill in all the empty space. Aloysius the Gaul 23:23, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * @ཨོཾ་མ་ཎི་པདྨེ་ཧཱུྃ That is what I did. A centillion centillion would be 10^(303+303) or 10^606.  Notice it was 10^(303×10^303), which means there are one centillion separate centillions.  A thousand is 10^3.  A thousand thousand thousands would be 10^(3+3+3) or 10^9 (one billion in American).  A thousand separate thousands would be 10^(3×10^3).  MirrorIrorriM (talk) 03:42, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you including all the possible decimal numbers between the integers?Hubert (talk) 15:17, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Considering that Public K-12 schools are free to attend but why is it at a Public college or University you have to get loans and or pay out of pocket?
Taxes would go up slightly if public colleges and universities didn't charge but it would not be much. In Sweden and Norway, college education is free and their economies are doing good. I doubt that rich people would want to pay the little extra in taxes. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 02:20, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * dunno about the us. but in most places school is compulsory up to a certain age, so that kinda needs to be free. and although a lot places do have free tertiary education, its generally optional choice taken by adults. and we all know that 'some' types think they have a god given right monetise everything they can. AMassiveGay (talk) 08:28, 28 June 2019 (UTC)