RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive302

THIS LAND IS MINE!!
GOD GAVE THIS LAND TO ME!!: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-evIyrrjTTY —  Palaeonictis  Fossil beds  12:29, 17 February 2019 (UTC)


 * this is better

https://youtu.be/wxiMrvDbq3s AMassiveGay (talk) 12:59, 17 February 2019 (UTC)


 * This is not better but it is an Esperanto adaptation of the above song. I never thought I'd get an excuse to share it.

Spud (talk) 16:07, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Netflix is "Marxist Propaganda", according to 8Chan's /pol/ section
https://8ch.net/pol/res/12642118.html

Do these people ever leave their basements? Tinribmancer (talk) 21:08, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Why is this a shock? nobspiss in my ear 21:32, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a first post notoriety fighting a best post culture. But I have to manage these kids.  They are brilliant improv comics, and half of them will do work, but occasionally I beat them in an improv nonsense conversation.  They know Alex Jones is trash, they know Shapiro and Crowder are trash, they don't know why.
 * I also manage my own millennial generation. They are also brilliant improv comics and most of them do work.
 * These Gen Z kids know what a roasting looks like, they know how to do it, and when they hit the workforce they are our darling Gen Z savages. Gens X and Y taught them the only important skills you can ever have are roasting and trolling.  Gen Z never gives it a rest.  They will do normal human labor if you tell them to, the world is not ending. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:28, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, Alex Jones and Roger Stone reported in real time 21 months ahead of CBS 60 Minutes that the FBI & DOJ sought to remove Trump by the 25th Amendment. No wonder there's efforts to silence Jones & Stone. nobspiss in my ear 06:18, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Except of course the FBI did not attempt to remove Trump - discussion how hte 25th works is not actually an attempt to remove the President, no matter how much of a doofus the President is.  Alex Jones' fantasy remains nothing more than his wet dream. Aloysius the Gaul 22:35, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Dershowitz says something quite different. nobspiss in my ear 00:08, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah he's making exactly the same mistake as you - in the article linked to the link you give it explicitly says there were discussions at the Justice Department on potential scenarios to remove President Trump from office - discussing political scenarios is NOT actually attempting to remove the president. Actualy you expect justie officials to discuss scenarios - they SHOULD have a clear idea of what the process should look like!!  I don't expect Trumpets to understand the difference.Aloysius the Gaul 03:10, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It was an attempted coup. nobspiss in my ear 06:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That's right snow flake: language is violence.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:24, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * To be entirely fair to nobs, it's easy to see it as an attempted coup. Given that I'm not sure if it can be a coup if it is being conducted through Constitutional means, and the various legal questions still hanging over Trump, I kind of have to wonder what conversation we would be having in an alternate 2019 where Hillary Clinton won and it came out that, at one point, General Mattis discussed getting her Cabinet to invoke the 25th Amendment. I mean, it's definitely not perfect, but with that in mind it's easy to see how, at the very least, it looks kind of like a coup, though I don't think it actually was one. We have yet to see any evidence that Rosenstein et al. actually tried to get Trump removed from office. RoninMacbeth (talk) 17:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Nah it's not - there is no scenario where discussion of perfectly legal provisions of the constitution is a coup. Heck even if a cabal DID get together and roll the orange-utan using the 25th that is still NOT A COUP - it is perfectly legal process using the established constitution. Trumpets of course don't think in those terms - to them anything that belittles their messiah is fake news, or a coup, or something else illegitimate because they don't want to face up to the fact their hero is a spineless narcissistic alleged sexual predator and muppet. Aloysius the Gaul 23:53, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, then, I should restate my position; the optics were such that it is very easy to spin as a coup. If it weren't, we wouldn't be having this conversation. RoninMacbeth (talk) 23:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Why be fair when the proposition is completely dishonest? The E. Britannica states: "Coup d'état, also called Coup, the sudden, violent overthrow of an existing government by a small group. The chief prerequisite for a coup is control of all or part of the armed forces, the police, and other military elements." That doesn't sound a lot like discussing whether a provision of the constitution should be invoked. Ariel31459 (talk) 19:49, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You guys need to step back and look at the issue: The FBI does not decide who should or shouldn't be president. This is a serious constitutional mess America is in right now, which is hampered by ongoing investigations that supposedly are designed to find wrongdoing, but rather thwart Congressional inquiries and protect career civil servants.
 * For more than two years I've stated the need for a independent Commission to re-examine the structural changes to the intelligence community made on recommendations by the 9/11 Commission. Time and again we've seen these investigations used to cover up wrongdoing by career bureaucrats and elected officials, rather than get to the heart of the matter.
 * When Mueller wraps up, the report will not be made public, and the public will go on speculating about various aspects and conclusions. And the report can't be made public - that's exactly the reason Comey was rebuked by Rosenstein and the Inspector General for violating departmental policy. nobspiss in my ear 23:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you haven't heard of our venerable founder B. Franklin who said "Three men can keep a secret if two of them are dead." Mueller will be called to the House of Representatives where he will most certainly answer every question: the facts of treason can not be top secret. And by the way, that's piss on your shoes.Ariel31459 (talk) 02:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Dungeons & Dragons is a lot like religion
See here. Besides the Fundy thinking scheme of that something featuring dragons, deities even if fictional ones, and of course devils and demons must be by force Satanic, I think the author has a very good point, knowing how all what the former have to justify their BS is just a book, and once it's removed they're pretty much SOL -same as for their hate of evolution, BB, etc-. Panzerfaust (talk) 23:34, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a weird conclusion as I came in thinking Dungeon and Dragons foster cult like behavior and promote delusions like a religion does and kept reading the article until I found that point but didn't find it.  04:38, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You mean like anything large groups of people are passionate about? —  Palaeonictis  Fossil beds  08:07, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Dungeons & Dragons is designed to work off religious themes. It includes a lot of pagan iconography, as well as neo-satanic themes. 13:19, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's more correct to say that D&D works on fantasy themes... primarily drawn from Tolkien and Vance, to be specific, although there's stuff from all over (Howard, Lieber, et al... ). Fantasy may often have some echo of religion, but it frequently has little to do with any real world religion, pagan or no.  That was part of the problem with most of the Moral Panic regarding the game in the first place-- it weren't Jews, it weren't Muslims, it weren't Christians, and it usually weren't really anything that correlated to the modern religious landscape-- must be Satanic, or at least suspect.


 * The article in question is a good three years old, and to my mind, wasn't that accurate then and isn't now. Unlike religion, after all, D&D has a set of definite-- and mathematically definable-- rules.  Religion has rules, but they are far more open to interpretation-- which is where "heresy" comes from... Kencolt (talk) 08:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Almost anything that people believe passionately in can - in some ways - be like a religion. But clearly this is not the same saying anything can actually be a religion.Hubert (talk) 11:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

tear gas and wars
tear gas is ok for quelling rioting civilians, and ok enough for civilians to use on each other (in the form of mace and the like) in some regions. why is it not ok to use tear gas during actual wars? AMassiveGay (talk) 18:50, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * BeCAuSe oF ThE gREAt WaR. 19:52, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, the chemical weapons treaties. It is kind of odd in a way because it's one thing you can't legally do to soldiers in war that you can do to civilians. Soldiers generally have fewer rights than civilians. Bongolian (talk) 20:45, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes and no; often times when a soldier kills there is no investigation or coroners report. nobspiss in my ear 21:09, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Unless the person the soldier killed was a civilian, usually anyways. —  Palaeonictis  Fossil beds  09:59, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Arctic, global warming and states
With all the retreat of artic ice that could lead to new land being exploitable, companies and states are going to want to exploit them, but could some of the territory become habitable too ? Could that, in time, lead to the expansion of northern states or the creation of new states ? I don't know much at all on the subject so I have no idea whether or not something like that could happen. Diacelium (talk) 20:03, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, Russia for example is doing this and has great plans to do more to develop their northern region both economically and for habitation. 20:45, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hmm, interesting. Who has claim to the land? Are squatters rights applicable? nobspiss in my ear 21:12, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * There isn't any land. The arctic is an ocean. The handful of islands that exist in the arctic circle have been claimed, or even inhabited, going back over a century. Hannasanarion (talk) 22:04, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yahbutt claiming the land isn't sufficient enough. What about squatters rights? and who adjudicates?
 * This question really applies more to the Antarctic; gold hasn't been discovered there yet, but when it is, the rush is on. And Chile is the only country that has sent pregnant women to Antarctic to have anchor babies, AFAIK. nobspiss in my ear 22:27, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Squatters rights have nothing to do with it, because there is no unclaimed land. The northernmost piece of land on the planet is already inhabited by Canadians. Russia has done nuclear testing on their parts of the arctic. Norway hosts a massive seed bank on their largest arctic island. There isn't any room for disputes or new claims, the receding ice won't reveal anything but water. As for the antarctic, mining is banned by treaty and all signatories of the Antarctic Treaty agree to treat it as common heritage of mankind, like the seafloor, or outer space (regardless of what claims they may or may not have), and there is little reason to expect that to change in the forseeable future. Hannasanarion (talk) 22:52, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Inhabited? Hahaha! population density was 0.0 people per square kilometre. nobspiss in my ear 00:11, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * In my state, I knew a guy who had several acres with squatters on for years. When he wanted to evict the squatters so he could sell the land, the judge ruled it wasn't his land anymore. Since he made no use of the land, and no attempt to remove the squatters, the law reads it's their land now - the people who actually worked to develop it. nobspiss in my ear 00:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This would cause a major geopolitical issue. While Antarctica would be habitual, almost all island nations would be sunk. You have many island nation governments competing for Antarctic land. Plus South American and South African nations competing for Antarctic land. Don't forget, the major world powers would attempt to revoke the Antarctic Treaty so they can lay claim. Undead EAS Productions is invading --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

What you people forget to realize is that the ice is not going to melt all away, even the Arctic will have seasonal sea ice. The Antarctic Ice Sheet is in a far better state than Greenland's, and the ice caps have been through periods of warming like this before and made it out intact. —  Palaeonictis  Fossil beds  10:03, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok. Maybe the universe entered some disequilibrium phase causing the earth to tilt off its known axis by human measurements and understanding, causing the Arctic icecaps to be exposed for longer durations to the sun, and the melting of polar icecaps is not anthropogenic. nobspiss in my ear 00:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * so are we going to ignore basic chemistry and physics? Carbon Dioxide traps heat. Now, cars and factories pump out Carbon Dioxide. There are over 7 billion people on the planet. I could go on but that would go in one ear and out the other. Mind picking up a science book not written by a creationist or climate change denialist? 😉😉 --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 02:28, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Aristolochia cover story nomination
I have recently nominated Aristolochia to be a cover story. I invite everyone to read it if you haven't recently done so. Please add your comments to the talk page regarding the nomination. Also, take a look at Category:Cover story nominees and Category:Silver-level articles to see if there are any articles that you think that you can work on to help move them to cover story. Bongolian (talk) 05:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Belated birthday celebration
I started this page just over 10 years ago. A pity that the landmark went uncelebrated. Genghis Khant (talk) 13:11, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Shit that was a long time ago. Anyways, it's good to see another of the Old Guard here,, you're always welcome at RW. —  Palaeonictis  Fossil beds  13:16, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

About the Alt-Right section on our site
Does this only have to include alt-righters/alt-right groups from the US/UK/The internet or can alt-righters/alt-right groups from other countries be added aswell?

If so, I suck at making pages and I don't have SPOV (snarky point of view) so I thought someone could help me with this, since I really want this asshole here and I think most people would be astonished by this guy and his group. I don't know how many english websites covered him, but I do know that he's been mentioned on Infowars (which for some reason the people that made this reportage (the show is called "Pano" that covered him), called infowars a right-wing website, and not an Alt-right conspiracy website (for some reason, no one ever mentions the word "conspiracy" in my country (or hardly), not even stand-up comedians...) & that he appeared on Red Ice TV. After I saw that reportage, I decided to look up that name and it turned out that we have an article about those clowns.

And, yes. This is definitely part of RW's mission. Tinribmancer (talk) 15:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)


 * There's absolutely no requirement for RW content to be in English or primary about Anglocentric topics. It just happens that most editors here are either American or British and speak English. 15:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * If you use the AP definition of alt-right it is a generalized concept.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Request for design feedback
Please take a look at RationalWiki:Main Page testing area and tell me what you think so far of the design. 13:32, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Overall, it is a more pleasing design than what we have now. It think it might look better if there was some color on the top banner rather than just the text and grayscale brain. I think it would be better to put the featured article above WIGO. This is because the featured articles have been heavily reviewed by multiple editors, whereas the WIGO is more likely to have unreviewed information. Bongolian (talk) 19:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with Bongolian about the featured article not being displayed prominently enough and also think it should go above the WIGO. I'd also agree that a bit more colour wouldn't go amiss. Maybe make that bar beneath the welcome message the same light green as the panel on the right with the featured article and WIGO in it. Also, capitalization should be consistent. It says "Random featured article" but "Portals and Articles" and "What Is Going On?" personally, I'd prefer it to be "Portals and articles" and "What is going on?" Spud (talk) 04:40, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think it's effective from a navigation standpoint, but it's not very aesthetically pleasing. The value of the aesthetic design dependes on whether or not people's first impressions of the site are based off the main page or one of the more significant articles. RoninMacbeth (talk) 05:21, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with what and  said. Furthermore, I think the portals should be listed in alphabetical order. Nerd (talk) 05:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The WIGO section is very large and verbose for what it provides. There also seem to be a lot of lists and text. Putting some of the content (WIGOs or portals) horizontally rather than vertically would break it up. The Participate section at the bottom looks asymmetrical and too left-centred, maybe rearrange it too. And more images instead of blocks of text. --Annanoon (talk) 09:38, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Ok thanks for all the feedback, I will see what I can do. 11:13, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I've only got non-constructive criticism, it looks way worse, like one of those ugly web 2.0 infinite scrolling pages, but it's finite. But I don't know how to not make it look like that.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 22:16, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

remind me again with the problem with the current one? AMassiveGay (talk) 23:19, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It uses tables, which because of progress must be removed. However, once the tables are removed it is impossible for it to look exactly the same as it does now. 01:58, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That's pretty non-specific. Is the concern mobile users?  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:37, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually the concern is more related to Google, than the actual users :p Google ranks non compliant pages lower because of... reasons. Of course it does help the mobile users as well, it's better for accessibility, and it's also considered to be good web design in general. 16:06, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * They don't even list using tables as a problem. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:22, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Google won't penalize you directly for using tables, however they do penalize you for certain characteristics inherent to a layout based heavily on tables. It is possible to use tables on a site and everything will be fine (but this is not recommended), however in our particular case we are using several inflexible non-responsive nested tables to make up the entire page. And understandably this is a problem.
 * In any case, regardless of exactly what the issue is, our current mainpage is not compliant with modern web standards, which is something that should be fixed, given how it is relatively easy to fix it.
 * There is a separate issue, in that the entire site could use updating, and I detailed software upgrades to achieve this on the technical support page. In essence it is simply a case of updating our site to be closer to what Wikipedia uses now, rather than what Wikipedia used three years ago. 19:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

An update on the so-called national emergency.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/coalition-of-states-sues-trump-over-national-emergency-to-build-border-wall/2019/02/18/9da8019c-33a8-11e9-854a-7a14d7fec96a_story.html?fbclid=IwAR3g-qx1eutWs_GcVwGQCFtiGvX1Aq3-HFL5HP_iiQXcarKyx8l2HJhvmgc&noredirect=on&utm_term=.82479699cee5

Drumpf is being sued by 16 states and multiple independent committees over the constitutional authority of this declaration.

This just keeps getting more interesting with each passing day.

I know nobs, I will get the far right rhetoric. I wonder how I even could even call myself Republican in the past. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 02:36, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe you were confused or high. :P Tinribmancer (talk) 12:33, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * As a non-US person - to what extent is 'the national emergency' actually the face-off between Trump and 'the rest of central and local government'? Anna Livia (talk) 13:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Pretty much all of it. Congress is likely to accuse Trump of violating the Congressional power of the purse, thereby rendering Trump's actions unconstitutional. —  Palaeonictis  Fossil beds  13:32, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It's also an intra-Republican war in a sense. The conservative pundit split on this issue has been rather stark: the talk-radio / populist crowd (Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, etc.) howled when Trump didn't get his wall and encouraged the executive order runaround, and the more Beltway/business conservative pundits are the ones now that are currently howling. (EG: the National Review Online is taking time out of its busy schedule bashing liberals to bash Trump on this decision, or at least say stuff like this is a bad idea in the long run for political reasons (Jonah Goldberg)). Currently the (cough) "nativists" in American conservatism have the upper hand, so I'm honestly not expecting strong resistance from Republicans in Congress. However, I expect quite a bit of resistance from border states, even conservative states not joining the above lawsuit -- there's still some eminent domain disputes being fought from the previous border fence act in 2006.Soundwave106 (talk) 13:58, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The court battles will be interesting. Any attorney worth their salt will say, "Look, here's my legal dictionary. Here's the definition for the word 'emergency.' Here's why Trump's declaration of emergency is not legitimate based on what an emergency actually is." The SCOTUS loves shit like that because it allows them to cheap out and make a small, non-precedent-creating ruling. The funny thing is, I'm not even sure this is gonna be a partisan issue on the court. Allowing frivolous national emergencies creates an awe-inspiringly bad precedent going forward. A Democratic president could just as easily then declare a national emergency over healthcare, gun violence, or anything else. An authoritarian president who is actually, y'know, not an idiot could use the power to do some very destructive things. 14:07, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Elephant in the room
Having a complete idiot for president highlights how stupid and anti-democratic national emergency laws are. They should be repealed. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:28, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. At least revise the regulations to require congress to confirm the existence of an emergency. The present ambiguity is not acceptable.Ariel31459 (talk) 15:46, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Honestly, the first Democratic presidential candidate who promises to dismantle the imperial Presidency would significantly rise in my esteem. Unfortunately, without several reforms to the Congress as well, the executive will, almost by necessity, remain immensely powerful. RoninMacbeth (talk) 16:14, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm hypothetically prepared for the eventuality that the center-right, antipopulist nature of the democratic party takes root so firmly that the republicans beat them to this position in like 40ish years when 80% their current voters are dead and they're free to re-invent themselves or be replaced by a new party. That's too late for certain more urgent problems, so I gotta hope the left seizes control of the dems, and wins 2 branches of government.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:11, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * As a patriotic American, this declaration of national emergency is total bullshit. I 100% agree that this is abuse of power. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:41, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * With regard to the important problems, William Weld, former Republican governor of Mass. and newly declared independent candidate, is currently trying to engender support for the importance of climate change problems. Maybe a little encouraging.Ariel31459 (talk) 18:24, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * "Trying to engender support" is decades fucking late. Sensible, informed people have been doing that since the 70s.  Sane, not completely fucked up politicians since the 90s.  Immediate, "crazy", and "unreasonable"  action is what's warranted now.  It's too late for cap-and-trade, low-level carbon taxes, or renewable incentive programs.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:31, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * As a jaded and not particularly patriotic American, so are all the other standing ones. Why do we have indefinite sanctions on Iran without a fucking law or treaty saying so?  Why isn't seizing the assets of drug traffickers a law?  Why isn't the blockade of yemen a law, or better yet not a thing at all, as it's killed tens of thousands?  The difference about all the other abuses of executive power to subvert the legal process is that they don't affect Americans.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:31, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * A court case has been set up.
 * Is this an example of 'a would be irresistible force encountering an immovable object (ie Reality in General)?
 * There is a case for emergency powers to deal with unexpected major situations (not necessarily disasters)/starting off actions that will require complex-multi-participant involvements.
 * And this is how 'Grand Fenwick' rose to world dominance, as the USA was putting one more brick in the wall and the European Union decided to exit from the UK. Anna Livia (talk) 18:50, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I have two questions. 1.  Are these 4 lines somehow related to each other?  2.  What do any of them mean?  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:53, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

The first one - refers, the second relates to long discussions previously on RW, the third is a general observation - and the last is an obscure reference - some obscure minor country will date its rise to power from the US and the EU being otherwise distracted. Anna Livia (talk) 19:05, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The context helps.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:43, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I know the United States has problems but Trump is simply unacceptable. My loyalty to my country is a big reason I want him out. Do your part as a patriotic American and impeach Trump --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:16, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'm just saying you're only removing a single tumor from a cancer-ridden patient if you do. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:33, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Plenty of incompetent politicians to go. Vote them out. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:11, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * But that's just it, I feel like it's not just shitty people, it's a broken government that isn't operating the way it should. Having laws that enable states of emergency that can do whatever a president thinks is expedient is just shit.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

What is a Turing Test?
What's a Turing Test? I've heard about it but what is it? Titofrito (talk) 17:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I've got two answers for you, one that is what everyone thinks of when they hear "Turing test" and one that is slightly different that was Alan Turing's proposed idea.
 * Popular conception: when a computer pretending to be a human can fool humans into thinking it's human by having a conversation, it's "sufficiently advanced AI to be called real AI".
 * What Turing actually proposed, a controlled experiment called the "imitation game". It involves a subject pool of reviewers, and a pool of men and women who we'll call conversationalists.  Reviewers get broken into an experimental and control group.  In the control group, the reviewer has two text conversations, one with a man pretending to be a woman, one with a woman being herself.  In the experimental group, the reviewer has two conversations, one with an AI instructed to pretend to be a woman, one with an actual woman being herself.  The experiment would find a "real AI" if more computers than men could trick the reviewers into thinking they're women by a statistically significant margin.
 * Now, if the latter sounds like it makes a lot of assumptions about the innateness of gender, the importance of lying, and the power of human intuition to make meaningful deductions compared to more rigorous methods, congratulations, a lot of people agree with you. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:21, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you might be forgetting that Turing was a genius when it came to the creation and use of early computers. Commie Lib (talk) 19:03, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No? I'm pretty sure I'm not forgetting that?  I respect his contributions to the field, but there are specific, identifiable problems to the imitation game experiment that him also inventing the mathematical model of an idealized computer doesn't fix.
 * To be clear, there are specific, demonstrable examples of how some of those problems are not just present, but critical. One of the still most successful examples of passing the imitation game version of the turing test was loading an otherwise dumb chatbot with a list of extremely horny stock phrases, and letting the human stupidity of the reviewers do most of the work.  It didn't demonstrate real intelligence any more than Nigerian scam emails created by bots demonstrate financial genius.  It was a simplistic experimental design that didn't really take into account some important things.  Being a genius isn't the same thing as infallibility.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

The problem with the Turing test is that it depends very much on the naivety or gullibility of the human at the other end. In other words you are not testing the putative AI but you are in fact testing the humans. Or to put it another way - the more well-versed the humans are with AI or chatbots, the harder it is for the AI to be intelligent. (So it's not a good AI test.) Hubert (talk) 20:25, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it was an interesting thought experiment. It was supposed to address the "How will we ever know if we've made real AI?" philosophical argument, by shutting it down with simple pragmatism.  And if you go "yeah it doesn't actually work as a real world experiment" you're back to the philosophical question of "how will we know?"  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:32, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * As we know very little about what makes humans intelligent, deciding on whether or not a machine has human-like intelligence is going to tough. (Apart from this I think we should first develop artificial stupidity before we work on artificial intelligence. And, yes, I know it's an old joke. But it's all I've got.) Hubert (talk) 20:51, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Intelligence is a difficult quality to generally describe. In living creatures it seems to be species-dependent. The concept of AI is independent of any known species of entity. That's what makes its intelligence so difficult to define. The Turing Test has a lot to do with testing the technology able to mimic human behavior.Ariel31459 (talk) 00:11, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Which is why it's mostly ignored by most AI researchers. The "mimicking human behavior" thing is so embedded in culture that it's hard for AI research to get out from under it. It doesn't help that the name of the field is so bad: everything humans do is "artifical" and "intelligence" is practically meaningless. More than a few prominent people have recommended changing it to "computational rationality", which is much more descriptive of what AI researchers actually do: use computational methods to devise systems that accomplish goals in a logical fashion. But then again, if the name of the field were actually descriptive, we would probably get less money and recruits, so the name sticks. There's a reason every startup in the last ten years uses "AI" in their advertising whether they're selling robots or bananas. Hannasanarion (talk) 02:45, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * yes, but how long till my computer can love?

https://youtu.be/PE1lzqJCeJ0 AMassiveGay (talk) 03:29, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry but nobody believes Phil Oakey is a human being. --Annanoon (talk) 10:53, 20 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Computers will pass the Turing test when they start looking at images of 'decorative computers', complain about humans taking their jobs and that there is nothing to watch tonight #yet again#, and they want a pay rise. Anna Livia (talk) 12:35, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * ... and they play computer games instead of doing work. Anna Livia (talk) 17:21, 20 February 2019 (UTC)


 * They're be human once they start demanding affirmative action173.235.40.25 (talk) 19:23, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Redirect Vote
I suggested we remove some redirects earlier. There is a vote on the DJT redirect, for instance. You're more than welcome to participate in it. Note that I have since flip-flopped rescinded my previous position in favor of keeping the redirect. In hindsight, I probably made an ass of myself for starting this. Just go and vote anyway! G Man (talk) 19:03, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to [Single transferable vote this]? Anna Livia (talk) 19:13, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This debate started with my vaporizing the OAC, which redirected to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. You can participated in the debate and vote here: Talk:DJT. Bongolian (talk) 19:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Tyrone
You know, I sorta impulsively threw a gauntlet as his face after seeing his rather disgusting work then went on vacation for a weekend and now, wow. I don't need a recap of what I missed but I didn't have a chance to say anything. Was just interesting. 17:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * In a good way, or a bad way? RoninMacbeth (talk) 17:49, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Neither, I guess. Not having to justify my actions was oddly refreshing (for the record, I demoted him because his edit history was so short and contentious, added the revocation because of the personal attack). Also for the record? I'm probably more in shape than I have any reason to be right now and lighter than any time since college. What's with people? 17:31, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * They're dicks, by in large. RoninMacbeth (talk) 18:23, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I like dicks....sporting goods. —  Palaeonictis  Fossil beds  12:26, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Separating the art from the artist
Is this even possible for people to do anymore? I do it but I don't see others do it. I've seen so many people call great writers called racist for seemingly no reason. Two arguments I hear are; "Oh this fantasy race has parallels in real life cultures." "By my modern sensibilities this book offends me", I just find it depressing because as a guy who wants to write a fantasy I just find it depressing. No matter what some prick who doesn't know me will just write after I die. "Oh he was a racist because the villains weren't based off white nazis!" Do these people not realize the best fiction has some base in reality?173.235.40.25 (talk) 19:22, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Man, it sounds like you like writing shitty, derivative pop-fantasy garbage. No one is gonna write about you after you die at all if you wrote nothing worth remembering.  "Oh no I might be judged for my subtext, my poor whimsical writer heart can't bear the idea of criticism".
 * You find it depressing that people have opinions about books? And that they're not uniformly uncritical?  That's your basis for being depressed?  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:44, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * (ec)separating 'art from the artist' is more separating the works of known racists/raging arseholes that you would otherwise enjoy or value from the abhorrent views of said racists/arseholes. eg the works of wagner from his virulent anti semitism, or more recently the music of the smiths from the gobshite morrissey.


 * what you are describing is not about separating 'art from the artist' but the art itself being racist or in some way problematic. it shouldnt be depressing for you if you wish to write fantasy - just dont use widely known racist tropes as a template for your fictional races. you'd have no one but your self to blame if your work has accusations of racism thrown at it. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:51, 20 February 2019 (UTC)


 * 'Do these people not realize the best fiction has some base in reality?' yes, people do know this. its when the subjective view of 'reality' presented is itself racist or problematic when people complain - space jew watto and ja ja jamaican stereotype in the phantom menace for example. you failed to provide examples of what you are decrying - an example for "Oh he was a racist because the villains weren't based off white nazis!" would be useful to better assess the issue. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:00, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Where are these examples that you speak of? I am less aware of fantasy criticism, but in music criticism, the main "racism" I have read about revolve either the character of the person (eg Richard Wagner's antisemitism), or the society of the time (eg it is generally agreed that Elvis Presley was not racist -- sorry Chuck D -- but you can't really talk about Elvis Presley and other singers of the time (see: Pat Boone) without race being a part of the discussion.) There is a *few* pieces of music that are reviewed as completely racist, and guess what -- in most cases they truly are! (See: Skrewdriver / Ian Stuart -- you're not going to review an album like "White Power" any other way). I wouldn't expect fantasy criticism to be any other way, so I honestly wouldn't worry about it unless you are indeed using racist tropes. Soundwave106 (talk) 20:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Examples? One word Lovecraft. Commie Lib (talk) 20:34, 20 February 2019 (UTC)


 * (ec)it is also worth noting that criticism of past works for what can be seen as bigotry to our modern eyes is perfectly acceptable. it is correct to highlight such things in many many much loved works - fagin in oliver twist for example, or much of kiplings oeuvre. it doesnt mean you cannot enjoy these works, or you cant appreciate what makes them great, but you cant just ignore it and you cant not address it. many problematic views would have been commonly accepted for the time in which they were written. reading them today, when (optimistically) we have moved on, to not question such things is to condone them, especially when they are required reading in schools and the like. and somethings would have controversial even for the time - 'the birth of a nation' springs to mindAMassiveGay (talk) 20:44, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * the chronicles of narnia is another fantasy example with accusations of racism thrown at it AMassiveGay (talk) 20:49, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The chronicles of Narnia are very much bigoted and hateful towards the end. Start so innocent, end so fucking vile.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:51, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * (EC)Alright, maybe. But sometimes there's cases like Richard Wagner's antisemitism directly inspiring Hitler as documented by Hitler's own words and you go "oh, so maybe we shouldn't celebrate these shits".  Obviously that's a subjective boundary and it doesn't require some kind of absolutist position, but I feel like there's cause to say actively reject things on that basis for those who want to.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:51, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * i guess if you can't 'see' the artist in the work, you can probably ignore them if you value it enough. fortunately, even if you can see them, there is likely few with such a link to genocides. it is somewhat infuriating though when someones work is ruined by their dickishness. i used to love the smiths - their music resonated with me and 'what difference does it make?' is literally a description of a part of my life. cant listen to it now. itilicits such an emotional response it makes me uncomfortable when i remember the guy front and centre in that is so unpleasant. he always was, but hes taken it to another level now. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * HP Lovecraft was clearly massively racist in real life. Whether any of his major influential horror works were influenced by this racism is another story (I have not read his works so I cannot say). With Wagner, there's been some debate whether there's some racism in a few operas (Parsifal in particular). As a product of its times, to me this accusation is so-so -- any "anti-Jew" characterization of characters in the operas is debatable, and there are in my opinion worse offenders in the classical canon, as colonialist oriented, militaristic nationalism was very strong in much of Europe back then. ("Orientalist" works in particular to me are cringe-worthy from a modern sensibility.) It is clear that Wagner was more of a racist shit than the average, and from what I understand his works were protested even back then because of non-music essays like "Jewishness in Music". Richard Wagner's second wife and descendants were often even worse in the anti-Jewish department (with Winifred Wagner being the direct connection to Hitler). Obviously judging whether any vileness of character exceeds the art is a subjective thing; I prefer to focus on the quality of the art unless the character of the man becomes far more influential than the art. (For someone like, say, Charles Manson, the only reason non-obscuro collectors know of his blah-average soft folk is because it's music from mass murderer Charles Manson, and there's a certain character out there who uses such to be seen as "edgy" or some nonsense like that.) Richard Wagner legitimately created some musical innovations, he's probably more renowned for these than his social attitudes, and I can't take that away from him in spite of being a well known racist shit. Soundwave106 (talk) 22:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * There is definitely some racism in Lovecraft's horror fiction. But horror as a genre tends towards social conservatism anyways.  It's about enforcing boundaries, about lines that should not be crossed, the strangeness of alien worldviews and customs.  So local prejudices will always figure into horror, and it's all most certain that today's horror fiction will be judged by tomorrow's aggressive moralities when they come to differ from our own, as they surely shall.  Morrisey's veganism turned me off once I realized how 'problematic' and culturally insensitive it was.  And with Wagner, I just don't have the sitzfleisch for a whole opera, so he's a composer of short orchestral pieces as far as I am concerned, and in that role his politics is irrelevant. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 01:28, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * If you look at who in history is condemned and who seem to get permanent passes there's no sense of punishment fitting crime. George Orwell was an antisemite and misogynist and racist who's accused of attempting to rape a woman and lying in much of his journalism, yet he will always be a darling of both centre-left and centre-right. Almost every male star of classic Hollywood was a rapist or worse. So many classic rock stars are guilty of statutory rape, if not worse, and normally it's only an issue when liberals want to attack Ted Nugent. Nobody cares about Sean Penn hitting his wife. I can't even remember what Mark Wahlberg is meant to have done. I guess the answer is that if you want to ignore the personality behind the art, it's incredibly easy. Most of us spend most of our lives in advanced, thorough states of cognitive dissonance. Preserving our quantum of indignation for some special, randomly-chosen object of hate. After all, look at how many people voted Trump. --Annanoon (talk) 21:49, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * George Orwell, author of this modestly famous piece deconstructing British antisemitism is "antisemitic" on what basis? That's a charge I've never heard about a man who was a noted critic of the very same.  The only published source I can find making the claim that he was antisemitic is a weird psycho alleging that A) writing on and rebuffing the claims of antisemites in that piece means he lends credence to them and B) he had a friend he called antisemitic.  That's it.  Please tell me you have a better source for this bullshit than I found.  I also found forum posts saying it because he was antagonistic to bankers.  But come on with this bullshit.  None of the rest of what you're saying is borne out by serious investigation either.  The rape charge was literally based on literal hearsay, not decades after the fact, but decades after the nominal victim died.  I'm not a huge fan of Orwell's works, this isn't coming from some need to defend a writer I like, it's that you're engaging in fucking false equivalency to excuse some serious garbage.  Be better.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 22:09, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * To delve back deeper, one of the most important artists in history was Caravaggio. Hard to find a worse past than that, yet museums proudly show off his work. In our own time, a much less extreme example is Chuck Close, who's running into the phenomenon Smerdis describes above. Abitrary who's purged and who keeps at least some reputation, I figure everyone gets to make their own decisions and, most of the time, there's not much I'll be able to do to influence anyone other than myself. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい ) 14:25, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Doctor of Chiropractic or Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine: Which is worse?
I know this is debatable but in many cases, Chiropractic and Naturopathic go hand in hand. Hard to call. Never been to a Naturopathic doctor but I have been to a Chiropractor.

Chiropractors seem worse to me. I think my main beef with Chiropractors is their extreme overreach in their education. I could say the same with Naturopathic physicians. Do your part as a patriotic American and impeach Trump --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 02:34, 21 February 2019 (UTC)


 * They both might kill you, but at least there's some evidence of efficacy for chiropractors treating lower back pain. Out of curiosity, have you read chiropractic and naturopathy, ? Bongolian (talk) 03:56, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I have read both and have contributed to alternative medicine articles. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 12:45, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * By total volume of people screwed over? Chiropractic, on the grounds that there a million clinics and many many many people think it's a legitimate medical science, not something you get licensed to do by correspondence course.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 05:14, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

US State flags based off Template:Cf
So, we considered/any objections to duplicating the idea of Template:Cf (The national flags for the various WIGO pages) with US state flags. Depending on how it's set up, we could piggy back it, since does have codes for the states that are logical, 'US-AL', 'US-AK', etc (See:). It was an idea that crossed my mind, I thought I'd throw it out there and see how people felt on it.--NavigatorBR(Talk) - 03:46, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about this. I suppose you're mainly thinking about using those flags in WIGO elections, right? I can't really see that there would be much legitimate use for them in WIGO world. Only in the case where something related to our mission becomes legal or illegal in a certain state, like "New Hampshire legalizes recreational marijuana use." That kind of thing doesn't seem to happen that often. And if it did, I'd want the WIGO to have the US flag and the state flag next to each other. Spud (talk) 13:10, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Elections and state level governments were gave me the idea, I've been doing a bunch of the posts for the NC 9th District mess in the elections WIGO. Ir also might be useful for stories taking place somewhere specific or affecting a specific place, like the administration trying to take back the money from the CA high speed rail project or the Virginia governor blackface controversy. I do agree with you for having the US flag & the state flag displayed together if it was done.--NavigatorBR(Talk) - 22:55, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * All right then. It has my blessing. Spud (talk) 03:25, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Face-stomping GIF?
Hey, i vaguely remember there was such an animated pic in one of the templates or something (Rhetoric?) that illustrated the idea ironically. Can anyone help me find it?
 * [[File:Future.gif]] 'ere ya go. 16:42, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

WEIRD ARTICLE ABOUT “ONENESS”?
https://www.scienceandnonduality.com/embracing-existential-loneliness-and-waking-up-to-non-dual-aloneness/

It’s a weird little thing that I came up across. No logic, well nothing that proves the initial premise, that “you are everything, even life itself”. It seems like a story woven based on personal experience. Yet I can’t say that such a story isn’t helpful in the same way as religion in order to cope with life.

To give an excerpt from the link:

”

By making friends with my yearning for wholeness and learning to inquire into the nature of myself and the world with greater focus and discernment, it became apparent that what I had been searching for was Self- intimacy. I now describe this profound intimacy as oneness or “radical aloneness”—which comes from reconnecting with our own Aliveness. Reconnecting in this way showed me that my true Self wasn’t restricted to a body or personality, nor was it limited to the confines of time and space, and it couldn’t be described or quantified. It was all things: the full breadth of life. I realized that I had always been alone, radically alone; not merely as an entity, but as life itself. The same applies to you. You too are the same life. I invite you to inquire with me into your present scope of self and to begin to gently push down the boundaries that contain and confine you.

Contemplate this: what you are (beyond the self- concepts) is boundless and all-inclusive. Marvel at the idea that you (beyond the confines of “me”) are transcendent of time and space. Within that “you” that we call the Self, you arise as many focal points of universal Consciousness that project duality. Radical connection, then, can be revealed through putting things into perspective, through learning to “see” clearly and expansively. It is revealed by first connecting with our own Aliveness—localized consciousness, or Being; our basic sense of existing— and then coming to recognize that Aliveness is not divided into separate subjective egos.”

He talks about inquiring deeply and such but the question then arises “isn’t this really what I am or does it just feel that way”. I know that meditation does change the brain to give a sense of oneness and all that, but is it the truth or just a product of meditation. I have said to myself that there is a difference between being unlimited and feeling unlimited, and I think those who preach about nonduality seem to not want to accept their limitations.

Then there’s a bit about pegging his book towards the end.

But overall it just seems like any other spiritual writing, placing too much stock in experience.Machina (talk) 22:16, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

discord is wank
nowt to do with the rw discord, but made me chuckle. 11.05 the relevant part AMassiveGay (talk) 01:58, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Youtubers Nil -- Omega Memelords 2. 02:29, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

RIP Opportunity (2004-2019)
Its lasted dozens of times as long as expected, but we all knew it would have to come to an end someday. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 04:05, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I demand a rescue mission! But seriously, it did its job well. RIP, mate! Nerd (talk) 04:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * RIP, little rover that could. An ordinary human man (talk) 14:12, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this place could 'twin' with the locality.
 * Why can't the terrestial equivalents last as long as Opportunity and the Voyagers (and a few other such constructs)? Anna Livia (talk) 17:25, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * What "terrestrial equivalents" are you talking about? Also remember, that we are talking about space probes here. They have some of the finest engineering in the world going into them, and a lot of redundancy as well. A lot of things can go wrong along the way, and NASA cannot just send in people to fix things. Nerd (talk) 17:29, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Various of the expensive projects (computer systems etc) which develop problems within a very short space of time. Anna Livia (talk) 17:58, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Such as? Remember, these space probes had undergone extensive testing before getting sent into space. Nerd (talk) 18:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The NHS computer system, Universal Credit and various of these]. (Crossrail has to contend with the Romans - whatever they did for us - plague pits, the legacies of Joseph Bazalgette and other inconveniences created by 2000+ years of history.) Anna Livia (talk) 18:08, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * RIP, indefatigable traveller of the endless Martian deserts (and wasn't for that fucking dust storm it would have kept going on). May you rest someday in a Martian museum. Panzerfaust (talk) 14:44, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see a probe with a pair of rovers. Two AIs with the same goal, help each other get that data.  Maybe in dire straits one charges and finds the other for a quick charge or a dustoff of the solar panel. I'm usually fighting an attachment to tools.  Redundancy works very well, attachment to tools is a human trait.  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:44, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Space Bat
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ibq2IwznCgc Why does that remind me of this? —  Palaeonictis  Fossil beds  13:12, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Could someone explain this Darwin quote about slavery?
"It makes one's blood boil, yet heart tremble, to think that we Englishmen and our American descendants, with their boastful cry of liberty, have been and are so guilty: but it is a consolation to reflect, that we at least have made a greater sacrifice, than ever made by any nation, to expiate our sin." What is the "sacrifice" he's talking about?--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 09:33, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * If I was guessing, I'd have to say it was the 620,000 dead in the Civil War. 32.212.96.53 (talk) 13:05, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Whatever else is true, this BoN's answer is 100% wrong. The Voyage of the Beagle was written in 1839.  At this point American slavery was entering its most unjust, violent, and cruel period.  He would be talking about something the British did to end slavery(though the rest of the chapter doesn't really clarify what he thinks the Brits actually did to "expiate" their actions above and beyond abolishment).  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:16, 21 February 2019 (UTC)


 * British Slavery Abolishment Act (1833) was very contemporary. Ariel31459 (talk) 20:11, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Race Question
Are there race specific medications, and why do population groups have different skull features? Sorry if I come off as a 19th century skelm, but I've always been fascinated by the variety of features, such as prominent brow ridges vs absent ones, high vs flat cheek bones, prognathism etc. སྤྱན་རས་གཟིགས་ (talk) 21:06, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * There are wide varieties of human features, some lineages have darker skins and so forth. These things are also recognized as heritable.  But actual human lineages do not map into the "races" of popular discourse, which are ad-hoc classifications usually based on skin color and a subset of physical features.  Sub-Saharan Africans are more genetically diverse than humans from anywhere else, with south Asia a close second.  Human populations radiated out from those areas, and populations elsewhere are subject to founder effects and similar bottlenecks.  But at least in the USA all sub-Saharan Africans get lumped into one 'race'; Africans themselves almost certainly shave with a sharper razor.  Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 21:30, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * @BobRoss. Re: medicine, no, but there are different diagnostic processes and very slightly variable dosing guidelines for some medications. "prognathism" is an interesting word choice.  It's a real term used in medicine, but in internet discussion it's got a very particular kind of psycho far-right forum.  You know the ones.  It's not a term you'd arrive at arbitrarily.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:47, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I am well aware of the fact that Africa is highly diverse, and I make no attempt to lump different groups together. That being said, I arrived at the the term prognathism while trying to look for the right word that would describe this feature, I was going to say jaw projection. སྤྱན་རས་གཟིགས་ (talk) 22:07, 22 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Here's an interesting study: William Proffit, and american researcher and orthodontist, carried out a population study that showed that found in untreated White Americans of 8 - 50 years age, the Angle’s Class I malocclusions was most prevalent, i.e., 52.2%, while 42.4% were Angle’s Class II. It’s the Angle’s Class II that describe the protrusive upper jaw.


 * Another group of researchers found that the pattern of malocclusion in Africa (Nigeria) showed Angle’s Class I at 76.5%, and Class II 15.5%. This is something white supremists probably don't want to hear. སྤྱན་རས་གཟིགས་ (talk) 01:31, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Jussie Smollett attack
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/02/16/entertainment/jussie-smollett-attack/index.html

"Two law enforcement sources with knowledge of the investigation tell CNN that Chicago Police believe actor Jussie Smollett paid two men to orchestrate an assault on him that he reported late last month. [...] Smollett told authorities he was attacked early January 29 by two men who were "yelling out racial and homophobic slurs." He said one attacker put a rope around his neck and poured an unknown chemical substance on him."

The story keeps changing. First the attack was true, then it was fake news, then the attack being fake news was fake news itself, now it changed again... Thinker(unlicensed) 13:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Do note that it's the law enforcement officers changing the story, not Smollett or even the suspects. It's a classic case of poisoning the well, and serves to spread doubt about Smollett even if what happened match his account. Think for a second: why would someone pay someone else to fake an attempted lynching? Visibility? It wasn't at a protest or event. Kink? If he has the money to do that, he has the money to hire an escort. Suicide? Acetaminophen is a couple dollars and someone looking to die won't try to make it a spectacle. The police's claim makes little actual sense. 24.120.253.250 (talk) 23:04, 18 February 2019 (UTC)


 * The whole story is B.S. and is being used by the likes of CNN and others to regain some semblance of credibility after the McCabe-Rosenstein-Mueller coup attempt, i.e. Trump-Russia. nobspiss in my ear 00:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * judging by your post history both involving that subject and in general, you're jumping on the fact that one of the people in the DOJ involved in discussing the possibility of invoking the 25th amendment to legally remove the president from office is named 'rosenstein'. you are making sure you mention that name as much as possible. hmmmm, I wonder why? *thonk emoji*
 * also since it's through legal channels it's only a coup if guaido's attempt to depose president maduro is also a coup. both attempted through legal means, because military force is not necessary (though often invoked) in a coup. 24.120.253.250 (talk) 00:25, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

It has now been accepted the whole thing was staged. Commie Lib (talk) 19:00, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * @24.120.253.250 "Think for a second: why would someone pay someone else to fake an attempted lynching?"
 * That's a really bad way to handle any kind of accusation. People lie for infinitely many reasons. The job of the police is to listen to what is reported and to investigate if it is what actually happened.
 * "It has now been accepted the whole thing was staged."
 * Do you have some source? It seems to me that recent development are all pointing to a staged attack, but I prefer to proceed with caution. Thinker(unlicensed) 10:50, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * some might say encouraging speculation on something before all the facts are known is far from 'proceeding with caution' AMassiveGay (talk) 14:48, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * here, here and here.
 * I mean aside from the fact that the third is an opinion blog, the assumption that the police is a trustworthy source is uh certainly a huge one. Releasing a pre-conceived conclusion prior to anything like a trial is putting the notion that the accusation is fake in any possible judge and jury's head, poisoning the results. If they were investigating for the purpose of finding out what happened and not attempting character assassination, they would hold back their findings until either a trial or they're officially ready to declare that one won't be pursued for one reason or another. It's the same thing with the MAGA hat guy and the drummer. Regardless of who you think was in the wrong, only one of them got a 60 Minutes interview and it wasn't the brown guy. 24.120.253.250 (talk) 23:16, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The key word in all of these reports is still "allegedly" (Smollett so far has called the allegations of fakery lies, as far as I know). I don't think anything has been "accepted" at this point. Certainly not enough to make any conclusions or engage in the usual culture war shitstorm, as happened in meme land ("MAGA hat wearing racists run amok!" vs. "Victimhood culture run amok!"). Jussie Smollett could be correct, the "attack is fake" angle could be completely correct, but I actually could craft other alternate scenarios from the few facts we have in this story where none of the current "alleged story" from either side is right. We just don't know a lot. (There's a lot of *articles* out there, but most seem to be clickbait-y... I'm going to be willing to bet a good percentage of them are wrong. The only "fact" this story has shown so far is the over-reactionary nature of the mob, but that's nothing new.) Soundwave106 (talk) 19:37, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that those three reports were speculations. This news confirms that Smollett has been charged by the police:
 * https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2019/feb/20/jussie-smollett-suspect-attack-empire-actor-police-latest-news
 * "The Empire actor Jussie Smollett has been charged with felony disorderly conduct for allegedly filing a false police report when he said he was the victim of a racist, homophobic attack in downtown Chicago late last month, Chicago police said on Wednesday. The police spokesman Anthony Guglielmi said prosecutors charged Smollett with felony disorderly conduct, an offense that could carry one to three years in prison and force the actor to pay for the cost of the investigation into his report of the beating. Authorities were trying to get in touch with Smollett’s attorneys to “negotiate a reasonable surrender”, Guglielmi said." Thinker(unlicensed) 07:50, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * ...and now he has been arrested:
 * https://edition.cnn.com/2019/02/21/entertainment/jussie-smollett-thursday/index.html
 * "More than three weeks after he alleged that he was the victim of a hate crime, actor Jussie Smollett has been arrested on suspicion of filing a false report about it, Chicago police said Thursday morning." Thinker(unlicensed)
 * Yes, although it's never 100% a done deal until the trial is concluded (just ask a few Duke Lacrosse team members), the lean is now more strongly pointing towards fakery at this point. Soundwave106 (talk) 16:49, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Everything can happen, but now the lean is pointing only towards a hoax:
 * https://globalnews.ca/news/4982918/jussie-smollett-arrested-chicago-felony-charges/
 * "Chicago police said Thursday morning that Smolett paid $3,500 to stage the attack because he was dissatisfied with his Empire salary. [...] Prosecutors say Smollett gave detailed instructions to two brothers who helped him in a staged attack against him in downtown Chicago, including giving them specific slurs to yell and telling them to shout “MAGA country” and to drape a rope around his neck. Assistant State’s Attorney Risa Lanier said at a news conference Thursday that Smollett even pointed out to the brothers a specific surveillance camera that he thought would capture footage of the Jan. 29 attack. Police say the camera was pointed another way during the staged attack."
 * Anyway, the trial will begin March 14, we'll see... Thinker(unlicensed) 20:08, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * has it ever occurred to you that whatever has happened it might be best to just leave it until its been to trial? AMassiveGay (talk) 20:31, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I think what you're trying to say is nutpicking. It's really frustrating, since racism and homophobia are still things, and this situation was designed to be one version the worst of the worst in the worst way. Let's waste time on this?  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 07:45, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * "has it ever occurred to you that whatever has happened it might be best to just leave it until its been to trial?"
 * I cannot read the news and talk about them? What's your problem? Thinker(unlicensed) 08:06, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I am not afraid of you and I will beat your ass
It's like that old black hole, no matter how hard you try.

Gen Z really doesn't respect poetry, but we didn't do a good job teaching them. Linguistics is my favorite. Y'all should quit assing around. Spoken in haste and anger. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 08:35, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Wut. Kencolt (talk) 12:52, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I will beat ur ass mate. Gen Z gang represent. 13:08, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Christopher Robin is not amused. [Anna Livia] 20:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * A fan of the Yo La Tengo perhaps? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Soundwave106 (talk) 22:17, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Mercy, Maker's Mark is a really good Whisky. I'm sorry for this one, and I take it back.  Kendrick Lamar named his album "Damn" and he's not wrong.  Poetry is probably just reinventing itself again, paring itself down.  Maybe it's memes now, and I'm finally too old to recognize it.  I have seen "wut" a couple times before.  I appreciate it more every time.


 * I did find this backwards anti-marijuana Raymond Carver poem. The guy was from the "beer isn't drinking" era.  He used to sit in his car and write desperate letters to his editor begging to not edit his short stories.  I bet he sat in that car so he could cry and type at the same time.  Classic alchy shit.  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 23:27, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Also Yo La Tengo, Dr. Dog, and Belle and Sebastian are three of my favorites. They all storytell in different ways.  Kendrick Lamar is right up there with them, I just cringe when he sells it, probably because those are the only things my very white midwestern friends notice or take away from the songs.Gol Sarnitt (talk) 23:35, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I went out into our blizzard to help some kids get their car out of the snow. I know I'm old now, because I was the last one willing to unstick it.  The kid literally told me somebody told him to throw boiling water at it.  That's what we do now in a blizzard?  Prank each other?  here's a poem

Halfway up the hill they were all asses in a snowpile They were still trying. At least until I got there

what I must have looked like A demon, an angry adult all purpose, stomping through the snow Like I'd always been in that shit

I watched them give up on my arrival On my account, "We'll just wait til it gets plowed" "Oh you're all dressed up for it" Nice boots, I think he meant

"The last guy who came up told me to just throw boiling water down... No "No?" No "No" You can't back up. And you can't go straight We need to push from the front and the rear

"I'll just wait til they plow it" probably right no problem, go get warm How much worse is walking through this anyway?

Good fucking luck. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:20, 24 February 2019 (UTC)


 * My comment is a passing reference to Eeyore for those not familiar with British children's literature. Anna Livia (talk) 12:30, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Something I simply do not get.
In the 1980's when Mad Cow Disease affected England, the British government recalled all beef and infected cattle were killed.

Fast forward to 2019, Chronic Wasting Disease is affecting deer across the United States. CWD is a health hazard and could jump to humans. There are so many unknowns with Prion disease.

My point is- why are deer hunting permits still being issued? --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 20:24, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * My favorite headline from yesterday: "Eating ‘zombie’ deer meat is safe, researchers say". Bongolian (talk) 20:39, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It could be that people who eat deer tend not to eat the brain and spinal cord, whereas people are known to eat beef brains. Bongolian (talk) 20:42, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for keeping up on this, I probably never would have noticed this news. I'll let my friends know, the potential harm might not be big enough to justify the recall.  No deer brains, hunters. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:34, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, that implies we eat cow brains when we eat out, which.... I'm actually ok with. The other possibility is it was panicky damage control for a society that would someday know enough about the reality of processing and little about science, and add it all up to think vaccines could affect genetic expressions. Disney, I hear, is in panicky damage control these days.
 * Anyhow, hunters, no brains. Not worth it.  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:42, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * If you eat a calf's head, you may become pagan. Verbum sapienti satis. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 01:44, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Or a Victorian. Very popular in the Victorian era among the rising Upper Middle Class, they and similar things were, in an attempt to emulate the perceived feeding habits of the aristocracy.  (I'm not certain that said aristocracy ever actually ate the damn things, however.  They were more display pieces.  But the Rising Nouveau Riche held the idea that "If we're gonna cook it, By Thunder we're gonna eat it!") Kencolt (talk) 13:20, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

New Jerusalem Protocol
Any person here know about it? Connect to Skoptsy cult, present on many websites, Conservapedia one of them. 193.148.16.199 (talk) 04:46, 25 February 2019 (UTC)


 * There is one member here, that was present on the wikidot site entitled New Jerusalem Protocol (now it is deleted), they saw certain text from that site, and are only witness beside me. This is what my informer thinks. If you are here, let me know. 193.148.16.199 (talk) 04:52, 25 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Despite the frequent appearances that would suggest otherwise, I somehow doubt that many here are into either self-castration or self-administered mastectomies. Kencolt (talk) 08:36, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

European Union Copyright Directive
Any opinions? Yay or Nay? 86.44.3.148 (talk) 16:43, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * All copyright longer than 20 years is dumb and bad, and any enforcement regimes other than rights-holder sues rights-infinger are stupid. No exceptions.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:49, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Anything to annoy Google. Its not like it has any bearing on normal people beyond what is already the case. 22:45, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * it's so broad as to basically be unenforceable just like with SESTA/FOSTA in the USA, and therefore an excuse for the EU to shut down pretty much any site that they deem as impure and to shock larger sites into doing the same. just like with SETSA/FOSTA, the ones affected will be those most in need of a place to carve out in the web and who rely on the small community they do manage to make to deal with the world around them: young mostly-queer mostly-girls (look at Tumblr), fanfic authors and fanartists, people in abusive familial situations that the power structures don't exist for them to leave, people questioning their being with the strangers that they trust more than their own parents. this will also hit archivists storing, through sharing, the collective art and history of modern culture. look at what happened with the recent lawsuits by Nintendo against video game ROM sites. the idea of quoting a work, or even just a sufficiently famous person, being barred is the most unenforceable part, and likely will only be selectively enforced to silence dissention and chill speech.
 * the chilling of speech within several presumably-democratic nations, the erasure of culture to only be what and how corporations want us to see, and the repression of the speech of children and teens learning who they are and using what they know to question their beliefs about themselves and the world around them and to express things that would be hard to put into words otherwise? for what? a few (unsure) dollars in corporate pockets? yeah no something becoming so big it becomes part of culture should automatically revoke copyright. mickey mouse should have been public domain as soon as he became popular. 24.120.253.250 (talk) 23:38, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The requirements on websites for automatic filtering and proactively preventing infringement won't seriously harm Google/YouTube but will harm lots of smaller websites and creators with fewer lawyers. Nobody has developed an automatic filter that can distinguish between fair use and impinging use. It'll slightly protect rights-owners while restricting the rights of people to post stuff on YouTube (e.g. criticism, parody, or even just a video in a street that has a song playing in a nearby store). The content-production industry (art) is in deep shit and that's bad for society, but this isn't going to help it. --Annanoon (talk) 10:20, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Well the only real change is that platforms will become responsible for infringement rather than users. They will be required to find, and deal with, copyright issues as content is uploaded, rather than simply acting on reports. This shifts the entire paradigm onto the platforms, because people can sue them directly for hosting copyrighted content. That the platforms react to this by shutting down small content creators from using anything even vaguely copyrighted is just how they operate. 11:36, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You forgot to mention that the main issue is that the filters used to ensure something is taken down and stays so in the future (forget having an human operator ensuring everything is OK, even if they outsourced that to India and even that is not guarantee) are anything but 100% reliable. As happens now with YT there will be false positives, probably many, and it will be much easier to have something taken down than contesting said false positives -as usual, big names will have things much easier than nobodies-. Panzerfaust (talk) 23:14, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Whiny bitch whines
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=so6kvUjKfF0 Should we add TDM2 to the list of people pissed at us? —  Palaeonictis  Fossil beds  08:48, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * looks like you got a special shout out! --RWRW (talk) 08:57, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * When he gets a thousand subscribers on YouTube, then he can have an article here. Thems the rules. Spud (talk) 12:48, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, don't see that happening any time soon, Spud. Ignoring the atrocious attempts an video (one original ... I hesitate to call it a drawing and a few paste and copy photos) the damn thing is inaudible... I literally had to turn both software and hardware volume controls all the way up to even make out one word in three.  I, for one, cannot feel threatened by someone telling everyone how evil we are when no-one can hear them.  Except maybe a few dogs and the passing Kryptonian.  Neither of which is likely to be following right-wing Not-A-Pundit-But-Would-Like-To-Be-One whisperers on YouTube.  Seriously, I'm less bothered by his opinions and more by his technical incompetence.  Nah, no writeups happening in the immediate future... Kencolt (talk) 12:55, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I found it hilarious, browsing his channel I saw his videos on paleontology, man he bungled up the pronunciations and demonstrated basic misunderstandings of paleoclimatology and paleontology. It's more like he memorized some facts than attempting to attain a basic understanding of paleontology. —  Palaeonictis  Fossil beds  13:11, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 13 seconds in and I've already laughed. Please, by all means invoke all the PRATTs, I'm trying to get Bingo here. 39 seconds, and I "tweeted" a disciplinary comment. I can't even... Does this guy even know how a wiki works? And apparently I'm one of the site's favorite contributors. "It reads, you've been banned for invoking the holocaust" actually, as seen in the original comment here and the block log here (lowermost entry) I blocked him for an hour, barely a slap on the wrist.


 * 54 seconds pause or you'll miss it, Nazi cartoon. And at 1:02 we have a Ben Garrison cartoon.


 * 1:09 "in conclusion, what have we learned so far?" We've learned he took one comment by me, made a bunch of assertions, showed some political cartoons to poison the well further (not like anyone who actually likes this kind of drivel needs further poison) then "concluded" with the assertion that we "like banning people for no reason" not because he ("brother" my ass, not with this level of desperate bitching) verbally abused multiple users, after being asked to stop increased said verbal abuse, compulsively edit warred, made almost exclusively troll like comments, made multiple allegations with no evidence, refused to engage in discussion of said allegations, and was basically an all around unlikable asshat. But then again, I'm an ass, I just have some redeeming qualities (at least I assume so, else I would have been banned and gone my way by now.)


 * In closing, if you go to YouTube you'll find that this video was posted October 28, 2018, which just so happens to be the day TDM2 got banned from this site. Not an attempt to get sympathy at all, nuh uh. Now, I could criticize the style of the video creator, or the fact that he threatens more of his "expose'" but that would just be petty, so I won't. All in all, this video made me laugh. The whitewashing attempt is that pathetic (we have records dumbass). thank you for bringing this to my attention, I haven't laughed this hard in ages.  14:12, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oops, sorry you are one of our favorite commenters. Since you made one factual error, you're exactly the same as the person who made a giant pile up wreck of them; you're a crank now.  Thems the breaks.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:01, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Haven't done that in a while. 18:25, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Well that sucked. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 03:32, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Did he talk about me? 06:13, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No. Only GrammarCommie got mentioned by name. And I had to turn on the subtitles in order to make out what he was whispering. Not much in the way of unintentional laughs there. I guess YouTube subtitles are getting better. Spud (talk) 07:09, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Politicians' literary
'It is variously said' that neither Trump nor Corbyn has ever read a book: should not reading at such a level (or equivalents - an expert in a field reading high-level articles on the topic, alternative formats for those with visual issues etc) be a requisite for taking on political office at any significant level? And what are the likely consequences of the absence - failing to understand the broader picture/empathy and what else? Anna Livia (talk) 12:41, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It is a known fact that Trump has read books. However as a true socialist, Corbyn is obligatorily illiterate. 12:50, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * What's the definition of a "book" here? A novel? I don't have a problem with people reading nothing but non-fiction, if that's what they like. Spud (talk) 12:59, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm reasonably certain that both Trump and Corbyn have, and do, read books. Comprehending them is optional, however.  (Not that makes them different from politicians in general.) Kencolt (talk) 13:23, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The Sunday Times book review on the Corbyn biography has a quote that 'many former colleagues believe Corbyn has never read a book.'
 * I did mention 'relevant articles' and did not specify type of book: and the broader questions are the discussion point. Anna Livia (talk) 14:48, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I am a little skeptical of stuff people say about Corbyn that gets reported in the press, given the vitriol he is subjected to in publications like the Daily Mail and The Sun. As for the whole "should politicians be required to have advanced reading comprehension" question, I agree in theory. Remember what happened the last time we put literacy tests in politics? RoninMacbeth (talk) 15:30, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * "Such accusations are of course false, as we all know Jeremy Corbyn has read plenty of books like Mein Kampf of the Little Red Book" Diacelium (talk) 07:18, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a stupid thing to say. Seriously, what the fuck?  if you're dumb enough to believe this kind of shit, books that Corbyn is a co-author of for sale.  No ghostwiters.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:45, 25 February 2019 (UTC)


 * The Sunday Times is more reputable than the other papers: and sometimes 'the perception' has to be addressed.
 * As far as I am aware there were property and income tests imposed on UK electors and politicians - but not literacy tests.
 * Having politicians take the equivalent of the (UK) Citizenship Test might improve the standard of politics somewhat. Anna Livia (talk) 17:25, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The UK citizenship test doesn't have anything to do with book learning, other than that literary masterpiece Life in the UK Test: Study Guide 2019. It's all very well to say we need better-educated politicians but was John Major (3 'O' Levels at school, 3 more by correspondence course) any worse than Gordon Brown (first class honours degree and PhD)? --Annanoon (talk) 17:52, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I would fail the UK citizenship test, that's for sure. Who cares who a bunch of stuffy old monarchs were, and which of them killed which religious sect.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:31, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I did say 'equivalent' - and the point would be to show that the would-be-politicians had a basic understanding of their states. (Making some allowance for 'minor parties of varying degrees of significance and seriousness, and political animals.)
 * What about the literacy tests mentioned above? Anna Livia (talk) 19:24, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * the UK citizenship test has very little to do with monarchs. its mostly very basic history of a kind that most (british) folk are going to know and some civics. its very simple and i'm sure even ikanreed could pass it. i'd be very concerned if a sitting MP couldnt manage it AMassiveGay (talk) 20:00, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * They ask about fucking horse races, and how many jurors are on a scottish jury(and for the record they do ask about bloody mary and her killing the protestants). I could pass it if I studied.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:44, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * you dont know about horse racing? i am shocked. was it the grand national or derby? was red rum mentioned? AMassiveGay (talk) 20:49, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * A literacy test would be a great idea so that only the good politicians would ever win. How about a literacy for the right to vote, too ? So we can be sure our citizens won't make the bad choices. We don't wan't any politicians ever going outside the main ruling ideology, do we ? Diacelium (talk) 07:39, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * What is it about 'literacy tests'? (As distinct from such topics as 'financial literacy', 'basic numeracy' and 'cultural/history literacy' - and having such things as part of ongoing adult education.) Anna Livia (talk) 16:03, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * @diacelium - thats all bullshit. lets be clear - literacy tests for voters are unambiguously a poor idea designed to disenfranchise people. literacy tests or perhaps more accurately, competency tests for candidates for political office is not that by any stretch. why would it be a bad thimg to ensure that fucknuts standing for office have at least a basic understanding of what the job entails a bad thing? i'm sure someone somewhere can think of ways they 'could' use that to game the system somehow, but thats true of practically anything. it doesnt mean they would. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:15, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * rereading im not even sure what your point is there diacelium, whether you are for such things or not. your sarcasm is a little muddled. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:19, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I was going to make this same post and re-read his post catching that it was a backhanded compliment. Treating Trump like an exception rather than a rule of bad conservatism is a bit silly, though.  Saying the quiet part loud isn't the same as having different core beliefs.  Trump is not a special and unique populist, he's just openly racist instead of pandering to racism sneakily.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:21, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I was being sarcastic, yes, sorry if it wasn't clear. But I don't think Trump is particularly unique, but in debates about referendums or such in my country he's been shown as one of the examples of people voting wrong, etc... My point would be that if the people in power (the party that would hold the power at the time) create a literacy test for politicians, there's a risk that they'd make it so it'll be won mostly by people of their ideology, and the same is true for literacy tests for voters. Diacelium (talk) 21:41, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * (EC) For the same reason that the literacy test for voters is in practice a bad idea. In theory, voter literacy tests are supposed to ensure that voters are literate and able to be informed about political affairs, but in practice, well, you know. The question then becomes who decides what the test covers, and who administers it? Here in the States, we have few enough female and minority representatives as it is. Could you imagine how much worse it would get if the government had a chance to, potentially, restrcit memebership in Congress even further? Trust me, if they can find a way to abuse the system here, they will. RoninMacbeth (talk) 16:24, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * just because us politics is a horror show doesnt make it a bad idea in and of itself. what would make it a bad idea is us politics is fundamentally corrupt in and of itself. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:31, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * If half of what I hear about UK politics nowadays is true, it might not be such a great idea there either. And for now, it doesn't matter if it is a good idea "in and of itself." Because we are talking about implementing the policy in certain contexts, it matters more if it can work in those contexts than if it works in an ideal republic. RoninMacbeth (talk) 16:39, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * uk politics isnt especially corrupt. the uk has nothing on the us. for example, the most glaring examples are fiddling expenses, and over sending on election campaigns - as ikanreed tells, the us doesnt even have limits on expenditure. there are rules concerning vested interests and what work you can do when you leave office. loopholes exist sure, and one shouldnt get too complacent but the us we aint, incompetency however... you dont need an 'ideal republic' thats bullshit. if that was required for anything, nothing would be done. all that is required is some bipartisan cooperation and a generally robust system to prevent anything too egregious. despite some of the pricks we have in the uk, thats more than doable AMassiveGay (talk) 17:03, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I was being snarky about 'various politicians of the Dunning-Kruger persuasion.' And people have ignored my comment about ongoing adult education, ie that people are provided with the relevant tools and skills on an ongoing basis - a floor rather than a barrier. (At what point did 'able to use computers' move from being 'a marketable skill with a premium' to something that people are expected to have?) Anna Livia (talk) 17:18, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * are you unaware of the various adult courses available, with many free if you are out of work,or the continuing career development that many jobs require you to undertake? AMassiveGay (talk) 17:27, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Who won the Bill Nye/Ken ham debate?
I watched the whole thing but I don't get who won, or even if there was any voting system. Did I waste my time? Mostly I watched it for Bill Nye (I find Ken boring) but I figured somebody was going to win. Is there any real result of this debate, and if not, why did they do it? Slyclyde (talk) 02:25, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Nye. Commie Lib (talk) 02:59, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Who presented the better and more sound arguments more competently? Sure, yeah, Nye did.  Ham won though.  Because he got a large audience for his bullshit, successfully promoted his shitty creationist theme park across the whole internet for free, and lost zero followers, because no one was convinced to stop being a creationist by the debate.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 04:51, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I went to one Christian chat group out of curiosity at the time and their consensus was that Ham lost. But the consensus was also that Ham lost deliberately, though I can't now remember the convoluted reasoning behind that. But they convinced each other that Ham could have won hands-down if he had wanted to, but decided not to.Hubert (talk) 07:53, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * A matter of faith, I suppose. Kencolt (talk) 09:35, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * If you mean the first debate, Ham, but narrowly. If you mean the second "debate" neither. 12:34, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Could Nye's bow tie have had something to do with it? Slyclyde (talk) 15:33, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Ham defended his position with little cartoon sketches, and I gotta say, the cartoons looked pretty good, despite not proving any points. Slyclyde (talk) 17:23, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * How do you make a killer presentation? Visual AIDS.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The one with the skulls and the monkey and the guy in the blue serge suit was bad, but it's adorable to see Ken and Bill grabbing the world and pulling on it, what with how skinny Bill's limbs are and whatnot in those graphics. Great caricatures. Only an incorrect person like Ken would use cartoons to prove his point, since there are no real pictures or documents he can use. Slyclyde (talk) 23:08, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Religion and suicide
I used to think about killing myself a lot. I never did it. A big reason why I didn't go through with it, was I was worried, what if religion is true? What if suicide is followed, not by infinite nothingness, but by judgement? I still think about suicide sometimes, but now that I have kids I feel like I have a much more concrete reason not to act on it – I couldn't do that to my children (I feel like maybe I could have done that to other people, but not to them). But still, I wonder, before I had kids, if I had been totally convinced that religion was false, if there was no doubt in my mind, might it had made going ahead with suicide easier? Is it possible that religious belief – or even just the doubt/worry that it might be true – helped to keep me from acting on my suicidal impulses? If that is true for me, might it also be true for others also? DepressedAustralian (talk) 03:24, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi . I hope that you have availed yourself of medical services regarding your depression. Pharmaceuticals are often but not always helpful with depression. If you're suicidal, see our suicide page for information and links to resources. Different religions have different attitudes about suicide, so that's not that's not always a source of prevention and it may not do much for the underlying depression. Bongolian (talk) 05:25, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It is good to have discovered that kids and family can be part of a life worth living.Ariel31459 (talk) 18:04, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I have been in your shoes. There is help. Religion helped me along with counseling and medication. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 02:59, 23 February 2019 (UT
 * I tried antidepressants (moclobemide, venlafaxine, citalopram, escitalopram). I'm never sure they really did much, so I don't take them any more. (By contrast, I'd say antipsychotics (olanzapine) definitely really work but the side effects are just too damn awful). Most psychologists are pretty useless (some of them are even actively harmful), but the one I am seeing at the moment is the exception, he is actually pretty good. DepressedAustralian (talk) 03:39, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I have one under my belt. I was wildly depressed and caught a DUI.  Never a religious person.  This was a long ass time ago, but I rented a helium tank and made a mask out of a butter tub and rubber bands. I woke up on the ground coughing and couldn't find the resolve to put my mask back on. Try failing at suicide, woof. It has taken me a long, long time, and a second DUI to come to terms with what I did TO myself. Being honest about it has only made people more distant. I would prescribe living until you die. It's an easier life.  Bolding is not my decision, and I don't know why my response is in bold.  But I still mean it.  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:01, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Here's another conundrum: What if believing in religion doesn't save you from judgement? nobspiss in my ear 06:36, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe all are judged, but some are judged more harshly than others. If one believes that, then one ought to do whatever one can to be judged less harshly. DepressedAustralian (talk) 10:14, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Bingo. Come to Jesus and be saved from judgement. nobspiss in my ear 16:21, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Technically I'm judging all of you right now. (I'm better at it than god, who's kind of a dick)  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:22, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * . I know a lot of Protestants treat belief in Jesus as a sort of "get out of jail free card", that once you believe God lets you off the hook for all you ever do, no matter how bad. If Ted Bundy had saving faith in Jesus, then straight after his execution he woke up in heaven, right along with his victims (well, assuming they had saving faith – if they didn't, then Bundy spends eternity in heaven and his victims burn forever in hell). But, not all Christians view it this way. The Roman Catholics have purgatory – unless you make sufficient amends for your wrongdoing in this life, you will suffer in the next, before you get to heaven. Eastern Orthodox tend to be vaguer on this topic than Catholics, but some also believe in purgatory, others believe in a similar idea of afterlife trials called tollhouses, some believe that hell is only temporary and even the damned are eventually allowed into heaven (purgatorial universalism / apocatastasis). C. S. Lewis, an Anglican, believed in purgatory, and although it is not a very popular idea among Protestants, he is not the only Protestant who has believed in it (or something like it.) DepressedAustralian (talk) 02:20, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thou art not far from the kingdom of God. The differance between believing in God and believing on God {1 John 3:23 for example). Believing in God, that is beleiving in God's existence, and believing God - beleiving what God say's is true - is a subtle grammatical difference. As to Purgatory, it's the doctrine of the anti-Christ. It denies the value of the shed blood of Jesus. If Jesus died for your sins, why are you then not saved from judgement? and why are you still held to account? As in all man-made institutions, the church and religion for example, there is nothing holy in and of themselves, and are all still subject to Satanic domination and takeover. Keep your eyes on the prize (Jesus) and not man made institutuions (church, mosque, religion, etc.). The bible says nothing about Purgatory - it is entirely a man made doctrine and concept).  nobspiss in my ear 04:03, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * "The bible says nothing about Purgatory - it is entirely a man made doctrine and concept" – 2 Maccabees 12:46 says "It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins" (Douay-Rheims Bible, 1899 American Edition.) That doesn't use the word "purgatory", but many Catholics understand that verse as teaching the concept. DepressedAustralian (talk) 04:31, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Not to be argumentative or digress too far, Maccabbees is a non-canonical historical book. Now, one can argue, "But it's in the Catholic bible," however the point is moot. Catholic doctrine does not recognize the authority of scripture, rather the Vicar of Christ (or Pope) being the final authority. It was a pope after all who placed Maccabbees in the Catholic canon. nobspiss in my ear 07:08, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not just in the Catholic Bible – it's in the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Assyrian Church of the East Bibles too. Whatever historical role various popes may or may not have played in it being in the Catholic biblical canon, that can't explain its acceptance by these other churches, since they don't accept the authority of the pope either. (Among the Eastern Orthodox churches, opinions differ on the authority of the deuterocanonical books – the Russian Orthodox tend to view them as being of lesser authority than the protocanonical books, a position which has some similarity with the view of some Protestants, such as Lutherans and Anglicans; by contrast, the Greek Orthodox tend to view them as equal in authority with the deuterocanonical books, a position closer to the Roman Catholic one.) It is also worth noting, that while the Eastern Orthodox often reject the term "purgatory", they do have beliefs about a post-mortem intermediate state which have a great deal of similarity to the Roman Catholic doctrine – see e.g. the 18th decree of the Creed of Dositheus, adopted at the Synod of Jerusalem in 1672. DepressedAustralian (talk) 10:12, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Continuing the digression, As you say, the term "purgatory" (referring to a "purging" of sin) does not appear in these books. The passage cited reads "It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead"(Similarly, the alleged semi-mainstream Protestant Mormon church practices a "baptism for the dead" ceremony). The Roman church adopted a doctrine of Purgatory after the appearance of Dante Alighieri's La Divina Commedia, which was largely a localized cultural affair that shaped the modern Italian language. From the Divine Comedy  {a commedia as a genre differs somewhat from the contemporary understanding of comedy). During the Protestant Reformation, because Luther put emphasis on the authority of scripture to override Papal decrees, the Pope responded by canonizing several historical books from which the doctrine of Purgatory is based. In La Divina Commedia, souls must pass through the Inferno and Purgatorio to reach Paradisio. What originated as a festival satire play became the basis of a doctrine to refute Protestant fundamentalism, i.e. a doctrine that teaches that the blood of Christ is insufficient to obtain salvation. nobspiss in my ear 15:36, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You seem to think Dante invented purgatory, when historically that is impossible. See Pope Innocent IV's letter Sub catholica professione of 6 March 1254, which clearly teaches the existence of Purgatory: "quia locum purgationis huiusdicunt non fuisse sibi ab eorum Doctoribus certo et proprio nomine indicatum, illum quidem iuxta traditiones et auctoritates Sanctorum Patrum purgatorium nominantes, volumus, quod de cetero apud ipsos isto nomine appelletur" (in English, "since they say a place of purgation of this kind has not been indicated to them with a certain and proper name by their teachers, we indeed, calling it purgatory according to the traditions and authority of the Holy Fathers, wish that in the future it be called by that name"). Dante wasn't even born until about ten years later, around 1265. So how can Dante be responsible for the Catholic Church's belief in purgatory if Pope Innocent IV was already teaching it ten years before he was born? (Dante no doubt helped cement the doctrine in the popular imagination, but contributed absolutely nothing to its formal adoption by the Catholic Church – to suggest he did is to have the historical arrow of causation completely backwards.) DepressedAustralian (talk) 23:16, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You're making my case. Purgatory does not exist in the canon of scripture. In 1254, there was no Protestant canon of scripture. The Pope made Purgatory a Roman church doctrine, cuz the Roman church rejects the authority of scripture and puts the authority of God's teaching in an elected pope. nobsI'm all yea'res 07:23, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

How do conspiracy theorists sleep at night knowing that they take advantage of those with mental disabilities?
People with either developmental or psychiatric disorders can easily be manipulated by conspiracy con artists. That is one major reason I find conspiracy theorists to be unethical. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 15:22, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Two answers. 1.  Way more than half of the conspiracy theorists out there get nothing from their bullshit.  They scream into the void.  This reflects that self interest isn't entirely at the core of it.  Those that are cynically exploitative(say your alex joneses) are willing to go so much further than merely decieving people, with an upper bound of cruelty at least as high as alleging the surviving victims of mass shootings are liars and creating de facto harassment campaigns against them, e.g..
 * Not that I wish to minimize the particular misdeed you've highlighted, but once someone steps into the "I'm willing to lie to people for personal gain" zone there's usually not a bottom to that. The people their lies hurt are necessary and proper.  All of them.   Part of where my extreme and ideological obsession with intellectual honesty comes from.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:36, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * A reason I mentioned this is that during the 2012 conspiracy, my second oldest brother was scared. Keep in mind that he has a severe learning disability and has limited understanding of the world. I don't blame my brother because he does not comprehend things like that. I suspect that conspiracy theorists like to watch things burn. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 15:52, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * TBH I think many conspiracy theories often are more or less organically created, and reflect more limited world understanding, bias, and various "I want to believe" type thoughts. Those that give the conspiracy theories a bullhorn in the name of profit, however, definitely are scum. It's clear for instance that Alex Jones is not the sole author of many of the conspiracy theories he promotes, but he is a "big bullhorn" that can stoke the fire of some of them. Now, I don't know how much Alex Jones believes what he spouts or not, but it's clear he is using his big bullhorn of fear bullshit to sell supplement bullshit. This is an ethically awful way to make a living. Soundwave106 (talk) 18:10, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * "People with either developmental or psychiatric disorders can easily be manipulated by conspiracy con artists. That is one major reason I find conspiracy theorists to be unethical."
 * The right conclusion should had be "that is one major reason I find conspiracy con artists unethical", which is quite obvious. Thinker(unlicensed) 21:26, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Even someone like me who knows full well that practically all conspiracy theories is false, an irrational part of me believes it. My main train of thought does everything possible to keep the irrational part of me locked up. With mental illness, keeping rational though can be difficult (even with medication). King of the World --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:25, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * "...practically all conspiracy theories is false" Quantification issues aside, conspiracies happen all the time. Just about all standard business practices of criminal organizations involve conspiracies. There are a lot of conspiracy theories about, say, the 9/11/2001 attacks, but the conventional explanation involves a conspiracy by Osama bin Laden and company. Currently, the top item in WIGO elections is Leslie McCrae Dowless being arrested and charged with crimes including two counts of conspiracy. And then we had the whole Cohen business yesterday. There is nothing wrong with conspiracy theories per se. It's just a question of what theories the evidence supports. I hope the RW community is not naive enough to think that institutions or people should be trusted implicitly. 75.100.3.4 (talk) 13:13, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I kind of like the premise of Miracle Workers
The design of the show with heaven being a broken, failing corporation with god as an incompetent CEO is the perfect god of our times. The ancients got a strong, angry man, the renaissance got their immaculate watchmaker, we have an Elon Musk. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 22:09, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

My YouTube channel has over 100 subscribers!
Who knew that a channel with videos made and edited on a tablet computer would get that far? I am even getting more noticeable in the EAS Community! From the office of Undead EAS Productions --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Suspicion intensifies. Just kidding, I subscribe to your channel. 10:28, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for subscribing. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 12:22, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

A can't believe this nonsense
Why are all of these people sticking up for that fucking idiot RobSmith at the coop? What has happened to this fucking place? 172.58.173.187 (talk) 03:12, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, do you have a history with nobs? You seem to be VERY interested in this coop case. RoninMacbeth (talk) 03:14, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * He blocked me on Conservapedia, and he keeps trying to become a mod which scares me. He is an authoritarian lunatic! 172.58.173.187 (talk) 03:20, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Care to make an account here (just so we don't keep having to refer to you as "the BON")? Also, why did he block you? RoninMacbeth (talk) 03:23, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 172.58.173.187: I blocked you on CP? under what name? I should remember cause I rarely block anyone. I probably haven't done a half dozen in year. I probably haven't done a dozen in 3 years. nobsI'm all yea'res 07:03, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Leave our favorite authoritarian lunatic alone! 10:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

👎. —  Palaeonictis  Fossil beds  13:03, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Potential RationWiki article (I will likely make it Monday)
https://tyndale.edu/academics/

Tyndale Theological Seminary and Bible Institute is ripe for the picking. 😉😉 --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:25, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Do they have a public face above and beyond existing and funneling some fundies through? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I will need to do more digging. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 19:37, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Momo
I have come across a couple of references to this internet meme in the last couple of days: should it have its own page yet? It appears to be 'a similar sort of thing' to the Slender Man construct. Anna Livia (talk) 16:07, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it depends on what those references are. Have there been news stories about it, or crimes committed related to it? After all, we're not cataloging every significant horror meme out there (Like the SCP Foundation, which despite being a very pervasive horror meme and strongly themed around conspiracies, doesn't have its own article because of ████████████ ███ ████ ████████████ █ ████████ ██████████ goat ███ ███████████ ████ ████████) ℕoir LeSable (talk) 18:25, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Would this do for starters - there are others. Anna Livia (talk) 23:05, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Seems overblown. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 02:34, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Could it go in moral panic or somewhere general like that? --Annanoon (talk) 14:17, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * As more such 'entities' are likely to be created intermittently and there are this and this on the other place, something should be created to avoid 'repeated create/vaporisation syndrome.'
 * A subsection of the Slender Man page perhaps? Anna Livia (talk) 18:18, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Seems a little different than Slender Man. At this point I'd put it in the "Rainbow Party" / "Jenkem" category of moral panics, as I'm finding very little evidence that this "challenge" actually exists. It seems to be a projection of fears about the legitimately worrying phenomenon of cyberbullying, to be honest. (I will say as an aside that the face is not *that* creepy -- to me that face is kind of like an elongated version of Sally from Tim Burton's movie Nightmare Before Christmas. I am finding the "OMG horrific image!" commentary on the tabloids rather amusing as a result.) Soundwave106 (talk) 20:19, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Whatever suits the RW set-up :) There is a case for some mention of these 'internet gremlins' (as distinct from the rainbows etc): even if most are promptly forgotten, the reactions say something about perceived rather than actual issues. (A Brocken-shadow-projection of fears perhaps?) 23:58, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Here is another article saying it's basically a hoax. --Annanoon (talk) 09:00, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

(reset) I started the discussion here because I came across 'a couple of references' and it was not immediately obvious whether Momo was the usual 'promptly forgotten shock-horror story' or was something more significant. The question then is: given that the trope 'internet gremlins and bogeymen trying to "do nasty things" to the children' exists, does it fall within the remit of RW, and if so how and where should it be covered here? Anna Livia (talk) 11:41, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This one seems to have progressed to the point where it receives mainstream news coverage. Probably article worthy.  The  may well fit into the same article. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 19:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Momo and Blue Whale are indeed the big "social media 'challenge'" moral panics of late. There's also been plenty of "lesser" panics in this category like the "Tide Pod Challenge" etc. At the very least I think this deserves a bullet point in the Moral_panic article, but a full article does sound okay to me as well if it expands on the biggest ones. Soundwave106 (talk) 20:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Would a section listing 'bogey-entities on the internet' (or a better term) on the Moral Panics page suffice - with brief descriptions, which are then extended if the characters persist under their own momentum. (Some are likely to fade into the background when the next newspaper-selling/clickbait scare story is promoted - like the 'latest craze' toys.) Anna Livia (talk) 12:30, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Paranoia
Do you think that maybe we are a little paranoid about logicnsuch? Commie Lib (talk) 22:01, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Possibly. 22:20, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but the problem is exacerbated by the fact that the little fucker really does occasionally show up to make more of a fool of himself. 22:46, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll say this. Assuming that it was a different user who posted ridiculously detailed information here about what LogicNSuch had supposedly done elsewhere on the internet. we don't care. We don't want to know what his real name is or which other sites he's supposedly shat on and you're not doing yourself or anyone else any favours by sharing that information here. And to anybody else, please don't add links to crappy YouTube videos of some mumbling kid with fewer than 100 subscribers rambling about nothing to this page, don't add links to those videos to article pages and falsely call them "references" or "resources" and, above all, don't whine over and over again about it when those links get removed. That way, you won't get blocked for being a soc of LogicNSuch and, hopefully, we won't have to talk about that arsehole ever again. Thank you. Spud (talk) 04:38, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

What is "Good Enough" for the Survival of Humanity?
We know the sun will eventually die. I say die, because we all say batteries die.

If Homo Sapiens intend to continue their existence in this universe, which I fully support, what do we have to do? Our legacy CAN outlast the life of our sun.

Is launching a probe to nowhere a good enough legacy? Is an AI android good enough? Do we have to send living humans in a diaspora? Can we send AI as nannies to human DNA?

What level of permanence does humanity really need? I'd like as many probes as we can launch to take Tardigrades everywhere. If there's alien life out there, at least our water bears won't be a horror sci-fi disaster if they find them. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:54, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It's useless to speculate about this. Earth will continue to be habitable for hundreds of millions of years. We could send space ships across the galaxy and back hundreds of times with today's technology before Earth became uninhabitable. We have no idea what humanity's options will be when it comes time to leave the earth. Hell, I don't know what my options will be to commute to work in 100 years. Anything beyond that is a great big question mark as far as civilization and technology goes. Hannasanarion (talk) 15:06, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The luminosity of the sun increases by around 1% every 100 billion years. This will eventually lead to there being too little CO2 in the atmosphere around 500 million years from now.  Plant life will then become unsustainable and life on earth will be over.  Fortunately, intelligent life is a self limiting phenomenon.  Whatever survives us, if anything does, is unlikely to be in a position to do anything about this. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 19:41, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Unable to save the earth, probably, yeah. But unable to do anything? that's a stretch. I continue to hold that this whole discussion is silly. Homo Sapiens evolved 200,000 years ago, and human civilization started 5,000 years ago. We have 500,000,000 years before the natural destruction of the earth. This is like a one-hour-old baby fretting about retirement. Hannasanarion (talk) 22:10, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/31/books/review/seveneves-by-neal-stephenson.html Cardinal Chang (talk) 13:00, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * what would be the point of 'survival' via human dna sent out in space if actual living human beings dont survive? thatb is isnt survival in any sense. i couldnt give a shit about genomes. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:52, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * And if Homo sapiens sapiens and Homo sapiens futurus then Formicidae/Xestobium rufovillosum/tardigrade/nematode sapiens sapiens will do so. And these beasties will 'switch off the lights' as they leave. Anna Livia (talk) 23:38, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

As the sun grows bigger, the goldilocks zone extends further out into the solar system. While Earth becomes uninhabitable, Mars becomes marginally more inviting as it's no longer permanently below freezing and solar power becomes worthwhile. More importantly, Jupiter's moons become possibilities for permanent habitation, and as anyone who's ever played Kerbal Space Program for long would understand, the lower gravity combined with all the other moons right there makes space travel far cheaper. Eventually, of course, humanity must seek out a means of interstellar travel. No matter what people say, we do not have the tech for it at this time. Space is an extremely hostile environment, and we would be unable to produce anything that'd be capable of traveling for thousands of years without ever being taken to the shop for inspections and repair, let alone store the fuel and supplies needed to keep a small group of humans alive on a sort of "generation ship" where the great great great great grandkids of the original astronauts tell their grandkids about how their great great great grandkids may one day walk upon something other than the overly cramped tin can that is the only world in the universe as far as they are concerned. We may have the technology in the future, but I'm not holding my breath. CoryUsar (talk) 07:16, 17 February 2019 (UTC
 * I will have to look into CorruptUser's claims. Otherwise, yeah, we're all looking beyond our own lifetimes here.  It's not exactly useless, but I understand the brushoff.  I am in agreement with Smerdis, but I would like to ask Hannasanarion what they mean.  I am a nihilist, I agree that these questions don't mean anything beyond human interpretation, here, now.  I'm not asking these questions because the world will be fixed if they are answered.  So, to the people who ask what does it matter, I ask "Who are you," and more importantly to the topic "what level of permanence would you require, that you bother to say it doesn't matter and that's it?"  I try to have fun with it.  I think having fun with it is paramount.  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:19, 23 February 2019 (UTC) 04:15, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, no answer there. We knock on doors to be welcomed in, not because we expect them to be opened.  Anna and AMassive are asking the right questions for what I'm asking.  Legacy and survival are very hard to separate.  Linguistically, can we do it?  Is there a difference between legacy and survival?  Not to deny humanity its right to use language. We recognize other creatures, we analyze them, that is part of what we do.  Our analysis is proof of us even if we boil it down to other critters.  If we protect a critter that doesn't know us, our effort may be misunderstood, but it exists.  To clarify bias, this is the first thing I've wanted to chase down in a while.  So maybe I'm asking about legacy and not survival?  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 06:04, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * As for the question of what does 'survival' mean, I think it is unbroken chain of descendants or bust. If we were to revive velociraptors today based on a preserved genome sample, we could say velociraptors are no longer extinct; we could not say that velociraptors had “survived”.  We have the technology today to construct a rocket within a decade to have a decent chance at someone landing on Mars alive and well (we may have to send a few rockets because each one wouldn’t be guaranteed to work).  We could even give that person (or group of people) supplies to try to keep them alive in some kind of biodome.  We could not make it fully self sustaining with an enclosed ecosystem, and we could not make it no longer dependent on repeated resupplies from Earth.  As the base got more established though, the resupply missions would become less frequent, but we are talking about initially having to send dozens of Mars missions initially just to keep the people there alive.  Because Mars is only accessible for a short window of time every 2 years, we would have to send a huge number of rockets at once to have enough supplies stock piled for the next 2 years.  It would be like the ISS, but with a price tag that makes the $4B a year cost of the ISS look like pocket change.  So about the cost of 1 year of the US Military budget.  MirrorIrorriM (talk) 15:16, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with you about Mars and today. And I know a space elevator is a pie in the sky technological Jetsons-style wonder, but I wouldn't rule technological wonders out.  So I would rather ask a linguistic question about your regrown-but-apparently-not velociraptors.  Is it really bust if their DNA existed and we as an entirely unkown species helped it achieve a complete body, brain, etc. Is it simply because it has no direct legacy that it is not considered survival?  I know this is distasteful to bring up, because people are constantly trying to separate humanity from each other, but from a purely linguistic standpoint we can imagine a situation where we leave behind DNA, some other alien species puts it in their DNA crock pot and boils up a Homo Sapien.  Well, calling it a human with no family, no home, no culture might not sound right, and I can respect and empathize with that argument.  But we'd all have to call it a Homo Sapien.
 * So this situation of unintentional DNA-based restoration would be legacy separated from survival? Am I tracking?  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:23, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

"Allegedly" attacked
CNN: Conservative activist allegedly attacked on UC Berkeley campus

allegedly:
 * "to assert without proof or before proving." Merriam-Webster
 * "used to convey that something is claimed to be the case or have taken place, although there is no proof." Google

So, according to CNN, the punch occurred during 0:12-0:18 in the video they posted on their own page is not a proof that an attack happened. Hence, in the title they wrote "allegedly". Thinker(unlicensed) 16:07, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It's CNN, what did you expect? Commie Lib (talk) 21:18, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps they have learned from the Covington incident what has not yet been learned in the blogosphere, and will never be learned: a small section of video does not tell the whole details. The video does not appear to capture, for instance, the important details leading up to the incident. If the conservative advocate actually started the violent escalation, for instance, then this could be seen as either self defense, or perhaps more likely due to the degree of violence captured in the video, "retaliation" (in which case both sides are liable to be charged). Since this is CNN so I'm giving them too much credit, but "allegedly" is fine until the police report comes out. Soundwave106 (talk) 22:14, 23 February 2019 (UTC)


 * It's news that you pay for. Cable News Network.  You guys are forgetting that they don't need to insulate their audience from reality, they are on cable tv, their audience is already insulated.  Same with Fox or MSNBC.  Insulate; dramatize; profit.  They cease to exist if people don't watch them.  People get bored with news that doesn't piss them off.  Any platform that "only gives you the news" is suspect.  Support national public radio.


 * Marketing companies are on this shit too, Nike, Gillette. The only way to win today is to be the bad guy who is actually the good guy.  Commercials are over.


 * Being said, this is a weird complaint. CNN used legal speak for a video that hasn't gone through the courts yet.   Have you been marketed some kind of ideology that says "If you look at CNN, you'll find out they are liars!"  Did you come to this realization yourself?  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 23:54, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * tpusa's very existence causes harm and extremist groups like them target the most supposedly-liberal campuses on purpose to make themselves look like the victim, so they instigated to begin with. Nazis always deserve punching and he should be glad he only got off with that. 24.120.253.250 (talk) 01:34, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, so like actively going out trying to pick on people until you find a nut? If only there was a term for that... Welp, whatever, new theory, turtles don't exist, Earth is flat, it sits on a nut, and it's nuts all the way down.  Change my mind.Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:06, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * "If the conservative advocate actually started the violent escalation, for instance, then this could be seen as either self defense, or perhaps more likely due to the degree of violence captured in the video, "retaliation""
 * Did you see the video? Even it the activist started the violence, there's no way that the punch at 0:12-0:18 could be considered self-defense. The activist was standing still, without moving, and the guy in black shirt punched him right in the face. If it was retaliation, let's say for example that the activist punched the other guy minutes before, it was still an attack. Thinker(unlicensed) 08:44, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did see the video, and there is a lot of detail not captured (basically the whole initial confrontation). Whether or not it is an assault or not does depend *entirely* on this detail. The video doesn't look like self defense offhand, granted, but that's just "armchair quarterbacking" -- anyone making an absolute judgement call based on a short viral video, that omits the exact critical build up necessary to make a fair judgement on this sort of thing, is flat out naive. If the conservative activist, for instance, was very violent beforehand (eg throwing lots of punches), even that punch could be seen as "okay" under the circumstances. Soundwave106 (talk) 01:14, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * "tpusa's very existence causes harm... Nazis always deserve punching..."
 * @24.120.253.250 Poe's law? Thinker(unlicensed) 16:37, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I mean, defending a known white nationalist group that routinely goes to campuses to spread far-right rhetoric and targeted harassment of marginalized people at those schools, then harasses and goads people who see through their bullshit into attacking them so they can claim to be the victims and bloviate about 'free speech on campuses' would seem to be either a Poe to any reasonable person or, if somehow actually serious, either showing a severe vulnerability to their propaganda or unironic belief in their, y'know, openly white nationalist beliefs. believing in proportionate (or in simply punching's case, mercifully less-than-proportionate) to discourage them from trying to push genocidal threats and propaganda is simply acknowledging the paradox of tolerance. 24.120.253.250 (talk) 01:12, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It's like the Angel Moms whose kids were "allegedly killed." There's either a body in the morgue or not. A dead body in the morgue isn't allegedly dead.  nobspiss in my ear 06:53, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * aside from that no one reads a blog that is only known for uh yelling at the SPLC, it wasn't the 'killed' part that was alleged, it was the 'by undocumented immigrants' part. I don't actually know the story or really care to look up whether the allegations were true or not, but the 'killed' part is what is determinable by a corpse in the morgue, the 'by who' part isn't. 24.120.253.250 (talk) 22:57, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Talk shit, get hit. You're going to demonize and criticize one punch versus all the history of hatred and bigotry being spewed that led to it.  I'm not defending the punch, I'd rather it didn't happen.  But being separate from all of it, looking from the outside in, and babying the activist, treating him like he's helpless and fragile?  Activism implies you are willing to suffer the consequences.  You guys.  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:31, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That's the same lynch-mob mentality that led to the lynching of 3000 innocent blacks. nobsI'm all yea'res 17:30, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * have you people forgotten how the internet works? you dont have to compare to history you ignore it entirely. you spam the image and story everywhere embellishing as you go. it will sear into peoples minds as liberal violence and all the 'facts' they will need captioning it will be ''talk shit, get hit' say liberals' all the while saying you dont defend it (but they were defo asking for it). we lose here and no amount of self righteous posturing while playing chinese whispers with various new sites will change that. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:38, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Ex-ISIS Westerners
In the Us and the UK, there has been controversy over how British and American citizens who traveled to fight for ISIS should be treated (including revocation of citizenship). I don't think this is productive, and I am wondering how we should deal with ISIS POWs who came from the United States, Great Britain, Russia, etc., with regards to prosecution for prior criminal acts under ISIS. Thoughts? RoninMacbeth (talk) 23:06, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * They should be judged and punished for their crimes according to the laws of their country, but not expelled or stripped of their nationalities, which would lead nowhere. Diacelium (talk) 23:08, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I thought of that, but then what about the Iraqi and Syrian courts? Many of their crimes were committed on their jurisdiction against their people. My main worry is how to balance holding our nationals accountable while giving Syria and Iraq the ability to mete out justice. Should there be an international effort to try and prosecute them, like with Nuremburg, or Bosnia? RoninMacbeth (talk) 23:11, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, put them on trial in Syria or Iraq, and let them answer for their crimes in the county that they caused the most trouble. I don't see any reason to let them come back here. If you join a terrorist organisation like ISIS, you're essentially taking up arms against your own country, thus relinquishing citizenship. --RWRW (talk) 23:43, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * And what of their children, in cases where jus sanguinis applies? RoninMacbeth (talk) 23:58, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Assuming they don't share their parent's fanaticism, then they shouldn't suffer because of their parent's crimes. In the case of Shamima Begum (the main UK controversy at the moment) the Home Secretary said her child won't lose his citizenship. --RWRW (talk) 00:06, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Punish the guilty and help the innocent. The guys who joined ISIS should be swiftly punished. The children did nothing wrong, they are not responsible for the crimes their father's did. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:16, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I mean, what happens when the children are repatriated? Are they released into the foster care system (or whatever the UK equivalent is)? RoninMacbeth (talk) 00:22, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Foster care would probably be for the best, but I have no idea what measures are in place if the kid gets sent here. --RWRW (talk) 00:30, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * foster care or the jolly ole British equivalent would have to be better. Life is not cut and dry. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:53, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I would imagine life in a refugee camp would probably break somebody who grew up in, say, Alabama. They would probably be all boo-hooey desperate enough to say "take me back, I don't like this life."  I am not so bitter as to simply say "play stupid games, win stupid prizes" and leave it at that.  But, I mean, it is worth saying.
 * Being said, ISIS, or as we were supposed to call them, Daesh, til y'all got bored of attacking them on a linguistic level, isn't new, and with these bitter tactics, it isn't going away. Turning away people who are trying to reconvert to the western homeland isn't the way to run the western homeland.  You leave to find out you are only useful to the enemy as fodder, and if you ask us for help, sorry, you're fodder now?  People don't learn that way, people don't learn to avoid doing dumb shit with that style of management.  Bring them back, prosecute them under our law, let them explain why they did it and let us tell them why it was wrong.  The western homeland needs to say, oh, so you're in trouble now, and we will bring you back.  Fine, but you have a crime to answer for.  I think this is what the original question is about, your guys' responses trouble me.
 * As for an answer to that question, I don't know, put them in a private prison or something. Lord knows we need to keep those cells at 100% capacity somehow.  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:35, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, I prefer our own courts to Syrian and Iraqi courts. Any criminal, any crime. Just to clarify bias Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:02, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

over 400 people have returned from the middle east to uk. what is special about Shamima Begums case that warrants her losing citizenship? AMassiveGay (talk) 14:31, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * indeed, what is her crime specifically? AMassiveGay (talk) 14:33, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I know, I don't think any of those terrorists should have been allowed to return. By joining ISIS, she has basically taken up arms against this country (very similar to treason). She also admitted that she joined after watching those beheading videos a few years back. --RWRW (talk) 15:19, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * so what. they have been allowed to return. tell specifically the crime she has committed and why it is different from those others. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:21, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but they shouldn't have been allowed to return. Anyone who leaves the UK and joins ISIS or any other terrorist organisation should automatically lose citizenship. Maybe the 400 here should be sent back to face trial with the other captured fighters. --RWRW (talk) 15:30, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * i dont really care what 'should'have happened, when it very clearly hasnt and wont happen. i'll ask again, what has begum done that is different that warrants revoking her citizenship and institutionalising her kids? as for sending other back - lets not forget that is it is still british policy not to send anyone to be executed or tortured, so lets nip that fantasy in the bud right now. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:45, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * if they have committed any crime in this country they can be dealt with in this country. we do not palm them off on to someone else when they are our problem. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:48, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * My thoughts exactly. Even if the Brits revoke her citizenship, that would make her a stateless person, which will create legal problems if the Brits go through with it. —  Palaeonictis  Fossil beds  17:23, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * My thoughts on this matter are as follows: Have they committed a crime? Yes? try them in the appropriate court of law for their crimes. If the crimes were committed in the U.S., try them in U.S. courts. If they were committed in Turkey, try them in Turkish courts. Etc, etc, etc. Why they should lose citizenship is beyond me, since it sounds like an attempt at playing No true Scotsman in order to avoid responsibility, and to try to look good. 18:55, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I see people arguing that these people should be tried in the appropriate court of law and then punished as appropriate. It seems to me that this really brings us round to fundamental questions of crime and punishment. Why do we put people in court and sentence them?

Is it so that society can get a sense of revenge? is it for rehabilitation? Is it deter others from doing the same thing? Do we lock people up as long as they are a danger to society? I guess it's a mixture of these things depending on the society and the people deciding.

But what do you do with people who have joined a terrorist organisation which proposes global jihad? And who presumably still think it's a good idea. I am not really sure how any of the above really fit with the situation. I have no real answer, and I'm glad I'm not responsible for making the call.Hubert (talk) 20:48, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * it should be noted that of (at least) 400 people who have returned to uk have gone on to live peacefully and not commit any terrorist crimes. there are also efforts to de-isis-fy? such people, in a similar to efforts to turn people from extremism, islamic or otherwise. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:26, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * it should also be noted that you cannot turn people from extremism if you bar them from the fucking country. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:45, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't doubt that is the case. But I see in your previous paragraph you spoke about "efforts to de-isis-fy? such people". And that seems to make sense. The problem is that one person's "de-radicalisation programme" is another person's "brainwashing system." If you get the wrong state actors behind such programmes you end up with Chinese brainwashing camps.Hubert (talk) 08:18, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * that is complete and utter arse. the uk is not china were 'brain washing' camps have nothing to do with terrorism. in the uk there are a number of community lead projects forderadicalisation that have nothing to do with brain washingAMassiveGay (talk) 11:19, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * And let us imagine that, say, the religious right takes (even more) control in the US and decides that atheists need to be reeducated?Hubert (talk) 07:44, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * why imagine what 'might' happen when we can look at what is happening now with deradicalisation efforts. you are talking fantasy and its an idiotic suggestion. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:42, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * According to the US consitution, "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." Technically, anyone who has married an ISIS member has given "comfort" to an enemy of the US, and is guilty of treason. CoryUsar (talk) 02:19, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * in the uk, treason laws have not been used since ww2, and are said to be unworkable and have no relevance today. also considering some newspapers throw the accusation of treason around with gay abandon for anything from MPs voting away they dont like to having an unsecured server, the idea is nothing more than a joke that i feel should not even be considered for anyone not in the military or government - places where you might be expected to formally pledge allegiance in some way. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:19, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Na, if people wanna go join a terrorist group and promote mass murder, then they can bloody well face the consequences. 12:57, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * who said they shouldnt? AMassiveGay (talk) 13:35, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The point is that the answer is NOT to strip them of their citizenship. Those people have committed crimes, yes. That means they should be punished according to the law, but there is no law in the United States or United Kingdom that allows for that country to summarily kick out a citizen, and in the US, we have specific constitutional protections against it: the citizenship clause of the 14th amendment. Hannasanarion (talk) 22:32, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * And @Hannasanarion dunks on everyone.Gol Sarnitt (talk) 12:27, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Edward Feser and Thomas Aquinas
What do you guys think of him and his claim that atheists misunderstand Aquinas's arguments?--Bonesquad11 (talk) 02:05, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Bullshit that is the theist's second favorite cop out after god moves in mysterious ways. Commie Lib (talk) 03:26, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "I can't explain it but I know it's true." Try that attitude when you apply for a bank loan, Feser. --Annanoon (talk) 10:21, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * In general, the arguments Aquinas made weren't particularly profound, but "evil is the absence of god" is sometimes oversimplified a little. I don't think the more complicated neo-platonist understanding of that concept is needed to refute it, though.  Most metaphysics is shit, and all neoplatonist metaphysics is shit.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:19, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Evil as the absence of God is an Augustinian idea and Thomas was an Aristotelian, not a neo-Platonist. As to the original question, I'm not familiar with Feser's work, his thinking, or what he means by "atheists misunderstand Aquinas's arguments." OP, could you shed some light on this so that I could respond? 18:10, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Here is a link to a blog post by Feser where he levels his objections. His main objections are:
 * 1. The argument does NOT rest on the premise that “Everything has a cause.”
 * 2. “What caused God?” is not a serious objection to the argument.
 * 3. “Why assume that the universe had a beginning?” is not a serious objection to the argument.
 * 4. “No one has given any reason to think that the First Cause is all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good, etc.” is not a serious objection to the argument.
 * 5. “The argument doesn’t prove that Christianity is true” is not a serious objection to the argument.
 * There are more, but these are the main one's that have to deal with the cosmological argument. --Bonesquad11 (talk) 22:23, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Feser is right and Feser is wrong. Feser is right that most atheists' objections to Aquinas' arguments are overly simplistic. Feser is wrong that Aquinas' arguments actually work. DepressedAustralian (talk) 04:15, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * “No one has given any reason to think that the First Cause is all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good, etc.” This seems to me the biggest problem.  Feser says only that Aquinas wrote many pages of material on the issue.  He doesn't do anything to make it more convincing.  The problem with the argument he likes is that nothing about the "uncaused first cause" is necessarily congruent with the traditional concept of deity,  Even if an "uncaused first cause" existed, that doesn't prove that this metaphysical entity answers prayer or ever begot a Son.  Because the real question is whether Yahweh, or Jupiter, or Buddha, or Ganesha exist, and if so which one; not whether there might be an uncaused first cause. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 05:01, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Feser and Aquinas would agree with you that philosophical argument can't establish that "God begat a Son", or that the "uncaused first cause" is Yahweh (rather than Baal or Jupiter or Vishnu). They'd say that you need a combination of philosophical and historical argument to establish special revelation communicating those propositions–philosophy alone can't do it. I personally think the flaw in their arguments is in the idea that the first cause must be "pure actuality" or "subsistent being itself". I'm not convinced the first cause (whether it be God or the Big Bang) need be either of these things. DepressedAustralian (talk) 08:33, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Some of the more pointed/interesting bits: The cosmological argument in its historically most influential versions is not concerned to show that there is a cause of things which just happens not to have a cause. It is not interested in “brute facts” – if it were, then yes, positing the world as the ultimate brute fact might arguably be as defensible as taking God to be. On the contrary, the cosmological argument – again, at least as its most prominent defenders (Aristotle, Aquinas, Leibniz, et al.) present it – is concerned with trying to show that not everything can be a “brute fact.” What it seeks to show is that if there is to be an ultimate explanation of things, then there must be a cause of everything else which not only happens to exist, but which could not even in principle have failed to exist. And that is why it is said to be uncaused – not because it is an arbitrary exception to a general rule, not because it merely happens to be uncaused, but rather because it is not the sort of thing that can even in principle be said to have had a cause, precisely because it could not even in principle have failed to exist in the first place. And the argument doesn’t merely assume or stipulate that the first cause is like this; on the contrary, the whole point of the argument is to try to show that there must be something like this. Different versions of the cosmological argument approach this task in different ways. Aristotelian versions argue that change – the actualization of the potentials inherent in things – cannot in principle occur unless there is a cause that is “pure actuality,” and thus can actualize other things without itself having to be actualized. Neo-Platonic versions argue that composite things cannot in principle exist unless there is a cause of things that is absolutely unified or non-composite. Thomists not only defend the Aristotelian versions, but also argue that whatever has an essence or nature distinct from its existence – so that it must derive existence from something outside it – must ultimately be caused by something whose essence just is existence, and which qua existence or being itself need not derive its existence from another. Leibnizian versions argue that whatever does not have the sufficient reason for its existence in itself must ultimately derive its existence from something which does have within itself a sufficient reason for its existence, and which is in that sense necessary rather than contingent. And so forth. (Note that I am not defending or even stating the arguments here, but merely giving single sentence summaries of the general approach several versions of the arguments take.) No one claims that the cosmological argument by itself suffices to show that Christianity is true, that Jesus of Nazareth was God Incarnate, etc. That’s not what it is intended to do. It is intended to establish only what Christians, Jews, Muslims, philosophical theists, and other monotheists hold in common, viz. the view that there is a divine cause of the universe. Establishing the truth of specifically Christian claims about this divine cause requires separate arguments, and no one has ever pretended otherwise. It would also obviously be rather silly for an atheist to pretend that unless the argument gets you all the way to proving the truth of Christianity, specifically, then there is no point in considering it. For if the argument works, that would suffice all by itself to refute atheism. It would show that the real debate is not between atheism and theism, but between the various brands of theism. In other words, Feser agrees with you. ;) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 10:40, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * What Feser says underneath "The argument doesn't prove that Christianity is true" may be relevant here:

2 Motivations for conspiracy con artists (my opinion)
Most of the time, I doubt conspiracy con artists believe what they say. Here is what I think is their real motives.


 * Milking money from those whoare prone to manipulation.
 * They enjoy watching things burn.

Just my thoughts. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 02:21, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I dunno. Take Jesus, for example; is Christianity just one massive 2000 year old conspiracy theory to milk money from hundreds of millions of suckers? nobsI'm all yea'res 02:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, there is the whole thing about tithe... —  Palaeonictis  Fossil beds  03:37, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * So, about 20% of planet Earth or 1.5 billion people are the victims of a 2000 year old conspiracy theory. Never mind the hundreds of millions of departed souls who brought it forward over 2000 years. Is that the postulate? nobsI'm all yea'res 05:21, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The entirety of religion is a complex topic, with plenty of positives (various moral philosophies and community strengthening and whatnot) that is outside the scope of conspiracy. That being said, there are definitely segments of "religion" (not just Christianity, Scientology absolutely qualifies here for instance) that use some form of combination of appeal to fear, argument from authority, "magic" / mysticism tricks that could have been pulled from a carnie show, and/or appeal to money in their practice, with sometimes little inclusion of other traditional purposes of church (such as moral philosophy or community building), and often a helluv a lot of passing the collection plate / merchandising to part the rubes from their dollars. To me, *at best*, these religious leaders are showmen. At worst, they *are* literal con artists that prey on various insecurities. (In fact, the worst con artists in this department are worse than Scientology, in that the "religion" con aligns with nefarious political goals...) Soundwave106 (talk) 14:02, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Scientology is the biggest scam ever. Complete with persecution complex. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 11:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The term has fuzzy edges 'my pet daft theory/game of join the factual dots in unusual combinations (to see if anything interesting including a story I could write)' is your conspiracy theory; and sometimes conspiracy theories do have a factual basis.
 * Some 'conspiracy theories' are a means of giving the person a feeling of power/authority - they can interpret/understand the world correctly and the ignorant generality cannot.
 * The problem with most conspiracy theories - the subjects are understood to be more powerful than is reasonable (and would take far more effort to sustain than is practical and/or persist long after the subject of the conspiracy has changed into something else). Anna Livia (talk) 10:33, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Or maybe they believe the shit they say. Diacelium (talk) 20:27, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Alt med bullshit gets a kid killed
A thirteen-year-old boy died in California because some goddamn huckster convinced his parents that insulin was poison and they should treat his diabetes with lavender oils. The LA medical examiner later found that his death was easily preventable had he been given proper care for his condition. Luckily, the huckster will be doing some jail time, but this definitely won't be the last life taken by alt med crap. (Link to story here). 07:05, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * What about the parents? They could be prosecuted, too? nobsI'm all yea'res 07:10, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not against alternative medicine entirely. That being said, don't stop mainstream medical treatment. Hope the parents are jailed. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 11:09, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The doc was charged with child abuse, but not the family. They say they were "brainwashed" by the guy. One bit in the article I linked stood out to me:

"Unfortunately, the boy’s condition did not improve, and his breathing became more labored. Concerned, the family told Morrow that Edgar seemed to be in more pain than he was before the treatment.

The herbalist responded by telling the family that Edgar had entered a “healing crisis.” According to Morrow, a “healing crisis” is when the body becomes iller to heal itself.

Doubtful of this explanation, Daniel went online to search for videos from other herbalists to verify Morrow’s claims. After watching several videos, Daniel said other herbalists echoed the notion that a “healing crisis” was a sign of the body improving."
 * Fuckin' enraging. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 14:54, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Ahh, I see. Now if the parents had done it cause they were Christian Scientists or something, then they'd be prosecuted, as in the past. Now it makes sense. nobsI'm all yea'res 15:03, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Given the boy's age - why wasn't the school involves 'somehow' (in view of the potential legal implications if he had had medical incidents in school)? Anna Livia (talk) 16:18, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Because schools don't always have nurses on hand, and schools of a certain size overload their nurses. And teachers and nurses at schools don't always know their students' medical situations, and diabetes symptoms present the same as exhaustion symptoms.  If the parents didn't involve a doctor, chances are the parents (and probably the child of the parents) likely didn't believe doctors and the school were necessary in the treatment/maintenence of a diabetic child.  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:50, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * A quick Google search finds at least four cases of Christian Science parents prosecuted for homicide in denying diabetic treatment to children going back to 1989. They should have used the "brainwashing" defense. At a minimum this looks like religious persecution. The parents in this recent case aren't even charged with neglect. nobsI'm all yea'res 17:01, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

What is death?
I mean if matter isn't created or destroyed then what exactly dies?Machina (talk) 04:11, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Death is the end of life. It is not the destruction of matter. Spud (talk) 04:43, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * So then what is life? What exactly is dying if matter is not destroyed?Machina (talk) 04:53, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The laws of thermodynamics also tell us that for any one organism life will always be a losing battle. Entropy always wins in the end. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 04:54, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Death is the cessation of bodily functions in a (formally) living thing. "death" and "life" are what we call the states animate things have at certain points. I'm pretty sure you're overthinking this. 05:10, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Or maybe I have just taken alot of things for granted. I mean what exactly dies if matter isn't destroyed? If matter isn't destroyed then is it truly "dead"? Or it is just the "passing of form"? Too many spiritual types seem to think that is the case. That there is no such thing as death, just the passing of form.Machina (talk) 05:22, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Get some Legos and build a little house. Now take it apart. Where did the house go? 75.100.3.4 (talk) 05:45, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * From the perspective of a human, "death" is more the permanent cessation of consciousness rather than the cessation of biological functions. Brain damage is a "small" death, and severe enough damage that eliminates consciousness is effectively death, regardless of any heartbeats and such.  Should humans become able to upload their consciousnesses to some sort of mega-computer, humans would in a sense escape death even as their bodies decay to dust.  However, it becomes a philosophical question at that point as well as to whether the original person or a mere copy/clone of the human is still alive, much like the fabled transporter problem from Star Trek. CoryUsar (talk) 06:16, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Medically, in humans, we differentiate death by "brain death", where no detectable neurological activity is occurring. In addition "vital signs" are also used to separate life from death: body temperature, blood pressure, pulse, and respiration.  Even these are only useful for terrestrial vertibrates.  It becomes something of a complex thing to determine when, say, a potato or mushroom is dead.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 06:44, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Third attempt, edit conflicts. I'd better get right to my point, death is not something we can experience in the second person.  We assume we can experience in the first person.  But nobody can tell anybody "I'm dead and this is what it's like."  Build a Lego house, it's only a house because you thought it was a pretty good little house.  Tear it apart, it's only torn apart because you're pretty sure it's messy now.  You have to conceive death on your own, in the third person, there's not a direct experience for it that can be relayed. So death is like a fanfic of non-existence. We all have to fanfic it, we can't conceive non-existence.  But if you're the Mary-Sue of your death adventure, maybe it's worth an edit.  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 06:56, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If there is a life after death, then we can have a first person experience of death. If there is no life after death, then we cannot have a first person experience of death. From the first person perspective, one's own death can only exist if there is an afterlife. DepressedAustralian (talk) 08:38, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * But from the third person, death can be as simple as a fuse blowing or a Lego house being unbuilt. But what's really important is when it gets complicated to us, and it is complicated.  I'll try and do explain this gently.
 * My dog was 16 when she died, I was 20. She fell down some stairs and broke her back, no idea how long she had the broken back.  I was 20 and had classes in the evening when my mom called me, crying, telling me she found her and asking me to help her take my dog in to get put down.  I said I couldn't because I had class, then went to my dorm and cried for a night.
 * Now, I had asked my mom to put my dog down for about 6 months before this happened. My mom wouldn't do it because she loved her dog.  I wanted my mom to do it because I loved my blind, limping, barely there dog.  We defined our love and ownership for that dog in different ways.  I still regret not going home for my dog.  Even though I recognize my dog regrets nothing, she is mostly ashes in an urn in her favorite window in my mother's house, [b]death took something from me[/b]. In a very complicated way, my dog is gone, but also with me, I mean she was there from me being 3 to 20.  But also she is not a part of it anymore, and hasn't been since she shuffled off. Here I am, still hurt, still missing my dog any time I think about her.
 * I do understand that my dog is gone forever, in a very permanent way. There is nothing I can do today that will affect my dead dog.  But I do still consider my dog every now and again, and I miss her.  The energies that drove her atoms have dispersed, and some of them are kept in an urn, whatever, mourn in your own way.  But my dog also died.
 * Maybe I was too harsh on the Curiosity rover fans giving eulogies. When something goes away and can't come back, and it's out of our control, I think that's all death really means.Gol Sarnitt (talk) 09:19, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe nobody and nothing is gone forever, and everything and everyone comes back again, exactly the same, even an infinite number of times. No religion required, just the . DepressedAustralian (talk) 09:32, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I guess it could be, I'm trying to define death. I know it's buried in there, but here's the point I'm making about death. "Death" takes something from us.  "Death" took my dog from me, "death" didn't take my dog from my dog.  "Death" took Grampy away from me, "death" took my last phone away from me.  I'm not mad at "death," I agree it is a concept, but no amount of explaining can bring us closer to an understanding of what "death" is for the thing that experiences "death."  Maybe "death" doesn't really even occur, but that sounds like we're scared of "death."
 * Nothing against the math, but if we always come back to this point, infinitely, maybe it's time we define some non-mathematical terms.Gol Sarnitt (talk) 09:56, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Death is not defined as the end of life. I suppose it could be defined as the state of not being alive. Potentially matter which is not alive could be made alive. So it doesn't have a robust definition. I suppose it's just "at a point where something is unlikely to be alive again" where alive is again loosely defined as being able to maintain the individual's genotypic body matter at a reasonable standard i.e. not being eaten by bacteria or breaking apart from UV, and growing/reproducing one's genotype rather than being destroyed (rapidly). I suppose in humans that correlates with a functioning blood system, and that in practice a point of no-return can be reached due to the failure of systems. Note life is defined differently from alive or living. Life is a general concept and alive is specific to individuals. Incidentally this is a good lecture on the definition of life. Liberosaurus Rex (talk) 11:45, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * if i die, and therefore profoundly and permanantly unaware, oblivion, then that is death. nothing that happens after matters to me. id be dead. the biological/physical processes are only of import to doctors and scientists. everything else, after lifes, reincarnation, decomposing, becoming one with the universe, space dust is just mental gymnastics to process a sudden absence of someone you loved or to contemplate our own mortality. its gospel truth to some or bullshit spirituality to others and deeply personal to the individual. if crazy leaps of faith lets you sleep at night so be it. if the scientific detail brings you comfort go for that. but if a sisyphean search for something with no absolute answer or is beyond our comprehension while being impossible to effect brings you nothing but nihilistic despair and apathy, its perhaps the wrong approach. any concept of death is supposed to help us continue on living, not overwhelm us or send us to an early grave via stress and worry and uncertainty. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:25, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

For me it was one of those things that you just "knew" but when trying to explain it you really can't. Kind of like "game sense" in League of Legends.Machina (talk) 20:52, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If you can't explain it, how can you be sure you really know it? DepressedAustralian (talk) 21:08, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * thats how its meant to be. there is no way of 'knowing' for sure, no absolute certainty. you can drive yourself crazy thinking about things that will never have an answer. ponder and reflect and search if that helps but never lose sight of the fact 'i will never know' is a fine answer. i guess that the lure of religion. you dont have to worry about what you cant affect because its in ya book. you can just get with life. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:16, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Death is the cessation of life processes. Or a weekend in Perth. - MtD Bogan   02:51, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Greetings
Welcome to the mule barn you lookin' for yer wife? —  Palaeonictis  Fossil beds  14:26, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Most ridiculous person you've ever met?
Who's the most ridiculous, crazy, or bats**t insane person you've ever met? Leave stories below. Freeatlast (talk) 00:50, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I was in 5th grade and there was a kid who rode the bus with me. This kid was a religious fanatic. I would clash with him on a daily basis because he did not like my religion. One morning in February of 2006, he called me a terrorist for wearing a red colored winter hat, said that the common winter hat was like Al-Queda then proceeded to make a death threat. Specifically get a gun a blow my brains out. Safe to say he was banned from riding the school bus. I was considered special needs and it was a special needs bus.


 * How very Christian- judges me, always angry and says what is much like terrorist rhetoric. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 02:00, 1 March 2019 (UTC)


 * My ex-wife. I don't want to talk about it. nobsI'm all yea'res 02:42, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * For me, it was some guy who made an entire movie about George W. Bush using 4 pieces of paper and a cheap red camera. Don't get me wrong, I hate Bush, but the movie was awful. I don't know what happened to the movie or the guy since. Freeatlast (talk) 02:48, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * He went on to make Sicko, and Farenheit 11/9 after that one. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:16, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Does one meet themselves? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:16, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No, this movie- I think Dick Cheney was a picture of the Penguin, and John Ashcroft was a picture of Snidely Whiplash, and then Bush and Rumsfeld were pictures of themselves normally. It was really bad. Any other crazy weirdos? Freeatlast (talk) 17:48, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * My wife. —  Palaeonictis  Fossil beds  21:43, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, why? Freeatlast (talk) 21:51, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That movie was called VIYCE, I think, by the way, in case any of you are interested... it's really bad, though. Ripoff of Adam McKay. Freeatlast (talk) 23:57, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I mean, aside from myself, there was a kid who went to the same middle school as me who constantly talked about his apparent military service despite being like 15, half a foot shorter, and 50 pounds lighter than me. he basically exemplified all the 'mall ninja' tropes you can think of. I wonder how he's doing. 24.120.253.250 (talk) 01:58, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Crazy. Freeatlast (talk) 01:59, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Had a neighbor who used to see the Virgin Mary a lot. I mean, A LOT.  He was very nice, but it's hard to always have to sneak away to smoke a cigarette just because the guy next door knows you'll listen to him.  He said when he was getting taken to prison, the birds all flocked to him and everybody (In his story, not at the apartment complex) asked him how he did that.  Again, he was very nice, he called me doubting Thomas once, and I just went with that any time I was in a spot.  You know me, I'm just doubting Thomas over here.Gol Sarnitt (talk) 10:45, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * obvious or least possible mental illness isnt something we should ridicule nor does it make anyone ridiculous though if they talking crazy what they say maybe ridiculous. that people look different or sound different, or what different things for different reasons does not make someone ridiculous. everyone is ridiculous from their biological processes and the world we built on that. nothing makes sense outside of our own heads in a specific moment in time. we are deluded windmill chasing simpletons to casual observers. the most minute distance makes thing ridiculous and moments of clarity can alienate us from each other. its like watching a movie. you suspend disbelief because it mars your enjoyment of things to constantly question everything about things that are only a problem because you obsess and dwell on them. dont worry about it. accept life is ridiculous, and get back to what you was doing. bear it mind as a check on grandiose delusions and impotent rage. save ridicule for charlatans, bigots, bullies. you know the people. no more ridiculous than you or i, but they do warrant ridicule. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:46, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You're right, I didn't think about "ridiculous" as ridicule. I hope I didn't say anything negative about him besides his fantasies.  But I did live with the pressure of this guy's fantasies for a year and a half.  most of what he said, I've had time to think about and ridicule.  I am not trying to put down mental illness.  But I did listen to another person's mental illness that I literally had no control over, what was I going to do, call the cops on my neighbor because he wants me to see the Virgin Mary in a water bottle with the label torn off?  So, sorry, I recognize he was mentally ill.  I am not trying to put down mental illness.  But the situation, where I'm just nodding along because I'm scared snd only want to get done with my cigarette and go back to my apartment, maybe I'm the ridiculous one.  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 06:57, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Alright, I have a ridiculous pair of guys. I was living in the dorms at my college, but I had an old friend call me  up to take me to a party.  When I picked him up, he told me he was selling ecstasy that night.  Whatever, no problem.  About an hour at the party, he comes up to me and says too many people are buying ecstasy.  I asked him if he took some, and he said yes and handed me all the money.  From that point on, he just brought me all the money, asked me if I was counting it, I said yeah, sure.  We left at 3 in the morning, went to go pick up and turn his money back in to his dealer.  Dealer counted the money, was shocked, was like I've never seen this shit turn around this fast.  Offered me some, I was like no, I'm driving.  Really, I just get really bored with people who are on MDMA, so I've never done it.
 * So I finally get back to my dorm, all pissed off after all this stupid stuff. I get home and this ridiculous pair of guys that my dormmate is friends with are there.  My dormmate isn't there.  And they won't let me get to my room.  They are begging me to go move one of these idiot's cars so it doesn't get towed.  These two idiots won't give me a straight answer, and I'm tired, I give up, and say OK, whatever.  I take the keys and go out and find the guy's car.  It was parked in one of those hashed out areas on a lot where you're not allowed to park.  Campus security jumps out from behind all the other cars, I just stand there and say "What?"
 * "You can't move this car, this isn't your car. We need to talk to 'idiot.'"  So I say, "I know this is 'idiot's car, but it's not parked in a spot.  I am going to park it in a spot, so it won't get towed."  They wouldn't let me in the car, they told me these two idiots had parked in a handicap spot, been walking around campus drunk, peed off the balcony, and parked again, here, illegally, and I gave up, I was tired, OK, whatever.  They followed me back to my dorm.  I opened the door, tossed the keys to 'iidiot' said "you two have to leave my dorm, I am sick of this shit" and closed the door behind me before security could come in.  Went to my room, locked my door.  Apparently the idiots decided to bust out the door and run past campus security.  Security called out a runaway, but they pressed the wrong button on their walkie-talkie and called the runaway to police.  So While I'm in my room, locked, I hear the police helicopter hover outside, I see four police cars pull up from my window.  I hear the police walk these two idiots back into my dorm.  They sell out the dormmmate that they are friends with, cops break his door in even though he's not there, find weed in his room.  The rest is what you could expect.  To campus security's credit, the cops did demand that everyone in the apartment come to the living room, and I heard them through the wall say "this is everyone."
 * But these guys talked to campus security 3 times, THEN parked illegally, and then asked me to deal with problems I never even touched. They also previously broke into my dorm one time just to see if they could.  I still refer to them as the two dumbest people I've ever met.  They also got robbed one time because they decided to sell weed by just leaning out of their car on rough side of town and asking who wanted to buy weed. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 07:33, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Meditation changes temperatures
Woo is real?? སྤྱན་རས་གཟིགས་ (talk) 21:27, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Not woo. This is a phenomenon that's long been documented.  There is, to my mind, a difference.


 * gTum Mo (more often referred to in the West as Tummo) and the meditation to raise temperature thing, isn't new to the news. It's been documented for a few decades now, and it's real.  The explanations for it, well, there's where things can get a little woo-tastic. Modern studies have determined that this is a real phenomena, and thus, being real, not woo.  Some people, through (usually long) training and practice can-- and do-- alter their body temperatures, to a significant and measurable extent.


 * On the other hand, one Doctor Pasang Arya explains it thus--


 * The psychic heat Drod is produced by the space particles and the heat manifested from the friction of the wind element. This is another fundamental element as it supports and gives power to the consciousness, like the power of the fire that can launch rockets to space. The power is called medrod or 'digestion fire' in medicine and Tummo in yoga tantra. The heat (fire) sustains life and protects the body/mind. The psychic fire increases the wisdom, burns the ignorant mind of the brain and gives realization and liberation from the darkness of unawareness. That is why yoga describes Tummo as the aggressive fire which ignites from below navel, pierces the chakras one by one and reaches the sky of the crown chakra. The tummo burning arrow married with the celestial bride leads to enjoy the life of transformation of samsara. They give birth to the son of awareness from the blissful garden of Vajrayogini.


 * ...which has a definite woo-licious aroma, but does sound somewhat more enthralling than the more conventional


 * Frankly, we don't fucking know how this shit works yet.


 * ...the latter from some hack writer called ... um... me. Kencolt (talk) 04:05, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I can't help but chuckle a bit when they create a magical explanation when the reality is that we don't really know. I mean it makes for a good story, but that's it. The other bit is about how yoga gives "insight" even though all we can really call it is an "altered state", not really the truth. Then again, that won't stop people from trying. "Burns the ignorant mind of the brain", lol. When the brain is the source of it all.104.186.77.29 (talk) 04:18, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I laughed a little more than I should have when I read woo-tastic. སྤྱན་རས་གཟིགས་ (talk) 05:40, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I could have said something else, but not many people here are fans of pseudoscience. Kencolt (talk) 05:53, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I rather think Rush summed it up well in one of their many far-too-overlooked songs, "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 (話して下さい ) 06:16, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keyword being "appears". I don't think meditation reveals anything the way the people who do it claim it does, but it does seem to cause a change. As far as truth goes that's the most I can honestly say it does, as for that being capital T truth, well I highly doubt it. Their explanations about the personal experience are fun though. Though I doubt Rush knew the extent to which our senses can be deceived.Machina (talk) 17:34, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The song in question was abour how very much our perceptions depend on things. Their earlier work doesn't get into such things, but they got there. And even if there's no good reason meditation does something, if it helps and it doesn't harm anyone else I'm good with people getting whatever it is they do out of it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい ) 21:42, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not deriding the effects it has on people. Honestly people can believe whatever they want so long as it helps them and doesn't hurt anyone else. On that I am fine. It's when they try to use the results of meditation to make claims about reality and such. I know this from much experience having been formerly "spiritual". It's largely based on interpretation.Machina (talk) 00:23, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I agree with that; thought I was clear before, now I realize I didn't express it right. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい ) 02:29, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I have an odd question
In the United States we use the Imperial measurement system while most other countries use the metric system. The fast food joint McDonalds has foods named with Imperial measurement system such as Quarter Pounder Burger and Double Quarter pounder.

The question- do other countries with McDonalds branches has the food named with the metric system? --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 22:45, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * God, you are just asking for an extended Pulp Ficton reference. RoninMacbeth (talk) 22:53, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No. I never seen Pulp Fiction though I am aware of it. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 22:57, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * A royale with cheese. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 02:29, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * in the uk, you can buy a royale with cheese but its burger king and its chicken. AMassiveGay (talk) 02:36, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * How dare you call Elizebeth II a chicken. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 02:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Not in my metric country. There is one burger with a measurement unit on its name, and it is imperial. But it is not a direct translation of "Quarter Pounder", the translation sounds more like "Big Quarter". 152.249.11.224 (talk) 23:00, 21 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Is it just 'a standard size'/using a measurement 'because it is so called.' (as with 'Twenty thousand leagues under the sea').
 * In one stationery catalogue I used rubber bands were inches lengthwise and millimetres widthwise. Anna Livia (talk) 00:31, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * i have a very poor concept of weights and measures because when i went to school the uk couldnt decide on metric or imperial, with fucking metric martyrs everywhere. as a result i have great difficulty gauging such things. i know i am 6'4 tall and 13 stone in weight, but i have no clue (without looking) how it translates to metric or how many pounds that is. i am never sure if a guy on grindr is my height or is really short. i buy some stuff in litres and some stuff in pints and i cannot tell the relative amounts without seeing them side by side. its pain in the arse. AMassiveGay (talk) 01:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

In Australia we use metric for most things. But McDonalds still has a "Quarter Pounder" and a "Double Quarter Pounder". And Subway has "Six Inch" and "Foot Long". Mass is always in (kilo)grams (nobody uses stone any more, and pounds without stones has always been a bit of an Americanism), height is in (centi)metres for official purposes (such as medicine or law enforcement), but still sometimes feet and inches colloquially. The weirdest thing I find, is some cafes using US fluid ounces for takeaway coffee cup sizes. The US fluid ounce was never an accepted measurement in Australia, we used to use the Imperial fluid ounce instead. I think that's something relatively new, probably due to buying coffee cups intended for the US market, and failing to understand localisation. DepressedAustralian (talk) 03:33, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That's very similar to the situation in Canada as well. A lot of places talk about meat in terms of Imperial measurements (e.g. "Quarter Pounder", or buying meat by the pound at a butcher or grocery store). Colloquially we tend to talk about people's heights in terms of feet and inches (e.g. I might say I'm 6'3"), but distances are always metric (e.g. I drove 31 km to get to work today). The awkward thing is drinks sold by the cup always seem to be labelled randomly - mL one place, oz. the next... AcidTrial (talk) 14:50, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Same in New Zealand, although drinks are all in mls. foot/inch/yard/mile still gets used by old folk like me, so my sons know of them, but generally a yard = a meter, a foot is 30cm, a mile = 1.6km, and often the terms are used in a generic sense rather than for specific measurement - "It's a few miles" is essentially the same as "It's a few kilometers". Aloysius the Gaul 23:54, 28 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Whenever quarter pounders are mentioned I am reminded of the bizarre failure of A&W's third of a pounder. Genghis Khant (talk) 08:29, 23 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Ok, so the 4 Euro cent per litre tax increase that kicked off the Yellow vests translates to how many U.S. cents per gal.? Secondly, is it just on diesel? nobspiss in my ear 06:30, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * US Gallon or Imperial Gallon?? :DAloysius the Gaul 23:35, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Is Sam Harris still relevant?
I feel like he went off the deep end in his book "Waking Up: A Guide to Spirituality without Religion".Machina (talk) 21:19, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * He still has a serious fan-base, though smaller than it used to be in the "4 horsemen" heyday. That's a kind of relevance.  As to the book, I'm gonna base my opinion on the sections publicly available through google books, and not any content I have to give money to someone I don't want to reward to see.  This may be an unfair assessment.
 * He makes some bullshit charges along the path of this book built off a fairly typical drug trip. "Few scientists and philosophers have developed strong skills of introspection — in fact most doubt such abilities even exist" is a hell of an extraordinary claim, especially given that navel gazing is perhaps the most common charge directed at serious philosophers, and it's one not followed with extraordinary evidence.  Asserted and moved on from in a breath, all to give himself credibility for having unique insight.
 * In a broader sense, in spite of his sub-textual suggestion that he is the one and only one to truly bridge science and spirtuality being from both worlds, he brings remarkably little critical thought and hypothesis testing to his assertions about spirituality as separated from religion. Critical thinking is what I turn to skepticism to appreciate.  It's not the whole of my life, but it's the thing that stands in stark contrast between a skeptical view and a pseudo-scientific one.  Not the inclusion of scientific concepts, but the ability to go "stop, let's break this down and ask if we're being reasonable and how we could be wrong".  In the publicly available chapter on happiness, he pontificates a lot, but brings none of the critical thought I'd expect.  For example, assertions that everyone has deep, innate knowledge like "We know how to keep our relationships in order, to use our time well, to improve our health, to lose weight, to learn valuable skills, to solve the many other riddles of existence" is never contrasted with the empirical reality that many people actually struggle with all those things and flounder in their own ignorance.  The contrasting evidence isn't dismissed, it's ignored.  To me that screams of a failure to do exactly what he promises of bringing his spiritual insights in line with the atheistic, scientific, and skeptical perspective he claims as unique to his brand of spirituality.
 * If it were just that one case, it'd be a forgivable oversight in a story of self-indulgence, but the rest of the chapter is of identical form, baseless claims of innate happiness, universal love, transcendent awareness. All made without introspection on values he claims to hold.  Real philosophers with real rigor have done a better job of describing the transcendent feeling in material terms.  Harris proves only one thing here.  His own hypocrisy.   ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:43, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fajfkO_X0l0

He talks more about the self here, but it's really just about the effects of meditation. The idea is that without a "center" through which things are mediated you experience a more true sense of experience without a "filter". To me though it's just like changing the filter on a lens, you get another flavors which is "true" in some sense. But since this is all based on personal experience I can't really say there is no self or that it is an illusion.Machina (talk) 00:09, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * When we talk about the self being an illusion, it is useful to ponder what is meant by "illusion." If we say the mind is an illusion, then we have said nothing useful. If you take that to mean the mind does not exist, then you have made a mistake. An illusion exists in your mind. But does your mind exist? It can't exist as an illusion because illusions can only exist in your mind. For the mind to be an illusion, there must be a greater mind experiencing it as an illusion. I say that there is no greater mind. There is no fixed mind as we are always changing. There is no fixed self. That is the illusion.Ariel31459 (talk) 02:18, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That doesn't really answer my question though. I mean I guess in a sense there is no "fixed" self since people can change things they don't like. But then there is the question of free will, and some traits that don't seem to change over time.Machina (talk) 06:03, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The question of the existence of Free will is an intellectual game we can play. By all means play it if you like. Many of the most celebrated thinkers have done so. You won't know any more about it after you play it, beyond the basic concepts. Like playing monopoly teaches you something about the simple idea of capitalism. Ariel31459 (talk) 17:32, 3 March 2019 (UTC)


 * STILL RELEVANT? He was never relevant. But this is probably the best criticism on the emetic bilge he ejaculates.https://www.reddit.com/r/AskPhilosophyFAQ/comments/4i89pc/whats_wrong_with_sam_harris_why_do_philosophers/ Cardinal Chang (talk) 20:14, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that Harris is a poor philosopher. Unfortunately the link above is merely censorious with practically no evidence. It says Philosophers laugh at Sam Harris. Not really. They actually are deeply appreciative when they have something new to talk about or in Sam's case, to correct. Try this New Republic article reviewing Waking Up. Be forewarned: it is not entirely negative. Ariel31459 (talk) 22:13, 3 March 2019 (UTC)


 * You did follow the links at the end of the article or even the links embedded, particularly the "self proclaimed neuroscientist" one? The man is a third rate Malcolm Galdwell, only far more annoying. As for the article reviewing his book, Thomas Quirk isn't a philosopher as far as I can tell, and obviously the review is his opinion just like my opinion remains unchanged, Sam Harris was never relevant. The man is a rather effective shyster. Cardinal Chang (talk) 07:23, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Drum and bass song has Carl Sagan samples
Though it probably won't be to anyone else's tastes. https://youtu.be/6SF-OG3Eu6o Towards-the Unknown (talk) 17:42, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * https://youtu.be/zSgiXGELjbc 75.100.3.4 (talk) 20:28, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I knew of that already, my post was more on the fact that Sagan being used as a sample in a drum and bass song is kind of unexpected. :p Towards-the Unknown (talk) 00:39, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Please test accessing RationalWiki on mobile
Getting scattered reports of RW being inaccessible on mobile devices on Bell Canada and Sky broadband - usually "connection reset". Sometimes it comes good on a reload.

Could you all please try on your mobile devices, both on wifi and on your mobile data? If you have problem, please tell me: - David Gerard (talk) 11:33, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * what provider/country
 * wifi or mobile data
 * precise wording of the problem
 * which browser
 * does it go away on a reload
 * I'm not comfortable giving out my personal details like that. Philip (talk) 12:36, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * then you should probably comment like a useless mf anyway, that'd be a top thing to do - David Gerard (talk) 13:33, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No problems on my phone. uk on 3 AMassiveGay (talk) 13:13, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No mobile problems for me. Midwestern American using Verizon. 14:21, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * good here verizon android mobile 14:47, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * All good here. Android mobile, Chrome. RoninMacbeth (talk) 14:57, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Good here, Android mobile, Chrome. —  Palaeonictis  Fossil beds  15:02, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No issues on Sprint, USA, Android, using the EveryWiki app. The indents in the Saloon Bar are an issue, though. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 17:29, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No issues on Version Wireless, mid-Atlantic area, USA; Safari on ios. Cosmikdebris (talk) 18:25, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Just checked Rationalwiki on my Nokia phone. It sucks. Philip (talk) 19:29, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Lol really. 10:41, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I get no problems on my Android phone or tablet, either by wifi (Virgin, The Cloud) or mobile network (3). The only place I know that I can't read it is at IKEA UK on their wifi, and that is due to the resident FriendlyWifi certification. Euromec (talk) 19:59, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * In New England I haven't been able to consistently access RW for a year and change. Https never works, and http does when it feels like it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい ) 02:04, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

The problem appears to be that SSL wasn't being served over IPv6 - I enabled it this morning, and Twitter users who reported the problem say it's fixed now. , how's it looking now? - David Gerard (talk) 11:45, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Working just fine now. Thanks! The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい ) 17:15, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Late but I'm not getting the latest version of recently edited talk pages on android firefox. Is caching the same on mobile?  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 04:15, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Who you really are?
What do people mean by this and how do we figure it out? Is it through trying many things, or in terms of meditation "stripping away the false mind" which would include anything that was learned or experienced and not what you were born with (culture, family, likes, dislikes, values, thinking patterns, etc)>
 * who are the people here? personally i know i really am - a shambles. everyone else? its going to range from spiritual folk where these things can be incredibly deep and meaning if your already on board (nonsense if you are not) that devolve into psychobabble  when stripped from the cultures and religions they arose in. and those dicks who strive for authenticity free from affectations that is probably impossible for any but the severely mentally retarded.
 * there is no 'true' self - you change constantly depending on situation and if things pop up that you dont like about yourself, or there are things you would like to be more like, meditation, mindfulness and the like might help. so might cbt or therapy of some kind. so might thinking happy thoughts.
 * stripping away stuff might be thing for some. but what things? all things? why do they need to be 'stripped away'? someone elses arbitrary ideals or your own peace of mind? its trite but its really a personal thing, where uncertainty is to expected for such ethereal stuff. dont fret over it. the cast iron certainty that some folk to have about these things is bizarre and scary to me. make mistakes, blunder along and enjoy the ride AMassiveGay (talk) 21:45, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It just gets me thinking that if I am not the things that I like to do and my thought patterns then what am I? Some places talk about cleansing the false mind that is rooted in the "pictures" we take of the world around us through experience and our senses. That this "picture" world we create is really the false one and that through meditation you can strip this away to reveal the true mind and become truth. Of course all that sounds like nonsense to me but I can't help but believe some of it to be true since we are born blank slates and are colored by experience (which is what they might mean by the false mind and those things not being you, though I could be wrong about all that). IT's just hard to think about since philosophy is by far my weakest subject and I can't really understand it. Everything in it sounds convincing, either that or I am just too gullible.Machina (talk) 23:53, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Spiritualism isn't my strong suit, but with regards to philosophy the claim is made as a sort of hypothetical. There is a hypothetical version of you that holds or lacks certain traits or desires, and those traits or desires constitute true being or true humanity, and are used as the benchmark for human life. The hypothetical is usually derived from "reason" or something similar. If you were not ruled by passion, for example, you would think X, and so X is true. Most philosophers just use it as a tool, usually as a contrast to "corrupted" influences from society. Examples could be seen with Plato's theory that no one willingly does evil, Rousseau's natural versus civilized man, and Hobbes' theory of natural law and the social contract. In most of these cases society provides people with false ideals and desires (Rousseau being the clearest example of this type of thinking), either morphing or suppressing the true, natural desires. The tool known as the state of nature is a way to try to think about how life would work without these influences to try and get at that true behavior. Certain behaviors or thought patterns are then described as "natural" and therefore true. I don't see why spiritualist thought couldn't take a similar route, though perhaps one that is developed more through ad hoc descriptions of what is and isn't natural. --Mabian (talk) 19:28, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The thing about Plato though is that "Evil" is largely open to interpretation. But like you said it's just a hypothetical. I mean you can believe that "Clearing" all that away will lead to who you really are, but that could just as easily be destroying who you really are or you might be creating something that was never really there to begin with (just what you believed it to be). You can believe that clearing all that away leads to truth, but that is really just a belief. Most from what I hear is there is no such thing as "who you really are".Machina (talk) 00:27, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * if you are looking at things from the perspective of a religion, then all the rituals and practices that rise out it are going to be to that end. lots of religions seem to go with the flesh is weak and corrupt, but the soul is pure and everlasting. purging the flesh and material trappings and you can transcend to something higher, free the real you. it doesnt make sense to think in those terms if you are not on board with that religion. people talking about the real you, are taking a very spiritualist view, that something intangible about yourself is a distinct and unchanging thing. if they are christian you would say soul. in that context it would make sense that 'stripping' away aspects of your personality might reveal a truth of some kind.
 * if you are not religious or spiritual in anyway you can stop thinking in those terms. think of it terms of how you view yourself, how you think others see you, and whether you are happy with all of that. people dont usually worry about their 'true self' if they are comfortable in their own skin. if however,you find yourself doing things you regret, or are compelled to try to hide or smother aspects of yourself you might question yourself. 'why am so mean to people? thats not who i am' stripping away aspects of yourself that are damaging or you dont like can be a beneficial thing. people pick up habits over time. learned behaviours, coping mechanisms. beneficial at one time, or simply pleasant, but over time become damaging or limiting. its probably not a healthy thing to think of these things as 'the real you' as you will be telling yourself this is you, you are bad person, you cannot be. it is better to say these things are not the real you so you can strive to be better. it would be wrong to think of this as some kind of eternal truth, but it can be helpful for some. in truth we are constantly changing, constantly adapting to our ever changing lives, misery follows if you dont change, but everything around you does, including your flesh.
 * you need not worry about 'destroying' who are. if you try some practice or therapy that involves some kind of stripping away of things, you should already be on board with the idea that the things you a stripping away are not good. destroying the real you is the point in this case. you are trying to create a better you. if you are not on board, you would have to think very very carefully about why you would want to remove an aspect your personality. reparative therapy is a good example of why this is not a good idea.
 * if nothing else, the processes of 'finding yourself' can be beneficial, even if it leads no where. you may find a whole new world open up for you or you find that you are actually happy with who are. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:56, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I left a link to the site that started this whole bit for me.Machina (talk) 21:39, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Bullshit. That's a horseshit premise.  More of who I "truly" am is the things I've experienced, learned, and felt than any fucking DNA or brain hard wiring.  Nature exists but nurture is the most important part of who I am, for sure.  The time my dad chastised me for lying about having ice cream before he got home,specifically lying, not the eating ice cream, when I was young affected my character far more than any native ability to I don't know, I guess do math?  And that's just one thing I remember.  I take issue with everything you've said.  Strip away the "false mind" and you're left with a beast dumber than my dog.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:53, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Well I got it from here: https://browardmeditation.org/what-is-meditation/overview/Machina (talk) 19:29, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I know. You get a lot of these questions from a lot of places, but I think you need to put more effort into critically questioning the basis for asking the questions, personally.  To murder Socrates, the unquestioned question is not worth asking.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I have the bad habit of getting sucked into whatever new thing I read on the internet or elsewhere and believe it to be the truth. Or I assume it is true and try to work out how it could be. In the case of the link I think they mean that the "self" that is based on experience is rooted in influence and not who you truly are. But meditation is an experience too, and there isn't a guarantee the "who you are" truly existed to begin with. But in my mind if someone believes something then there must be some truth in it, even though it is faulty to think so. But my guess is that anything that shapes or influences you in life is not who you really are, according to them. Though when I spoke to them a lot of the "explanations" was really just axioms.Machina (talk) 21:38, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I mean that's fair, but I really think you should start thinking about epistemology. Or more specifically, hermeneutics.  Don't just answer questions, but understand how you answer questions.  Get to "What assumptions do you have to make to understand this question?", and "If I came to a conclusion about this, how would I know it was right?"   You do that, and you can start having my bullshit false confidence about things.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 22:04, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Philosophy is by far my weakest topic since no matter how much I read or study it the whole thing makes no sense to me. Your advice doesn't really help me or answer the question I posed. I was looking to know if the above was right or wrong.Machina (talk) 00:25, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, as I said, I think the question itself is without merit. It asks us find ourselves in the absence of the things that make us ourselves.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 01:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The above is good advice. If you describe anything real about yourself in words, the resolution of your text will eventually fail to describe some quality of its object. Philosophers with Platonic tendencies try to be axiomatic. Their systems  are  generally incomplete. Nevertheless, you can make assumptions ( or accept axioms) that provide an understanding about the issues that you find most compelling. That will only tell you who you are at that moment, but it almost certainly will convince others that they know you.Ariel31459 (talk) 22:53, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That doesn't really help or address the issue I have with the "who you are" bit. I don't think describing anything real about me will fail since it does refer to a trait whether we have a word for it or not. When I gave the link I said that what they say seems to be based on the effects of meditation, the reality being that I cannot say anything about reality based on what meditation does. It has been shown that meditation affects the region of the brain that deals with body boundaries, which gives the illusion of oneness or being the universe. Meditation "clearing the false mind" can be seen as "Something unnatural impeding normal functioning and obscuring truth". But as I said before the above is NOT good advice since it doesn't address my core issue and seeks to involve me in a practice I have poor performance in at best.Machina (talk) 00:25, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * One of the easiest forms of meditation is to just sit and observe what thoughts come to mind. Five minutes can be enough to reveal what is lurking in the background. I would say the object of my meditations is to make me aware of the constructs I am naturally disposed to think about and how they can be described, and possibly modified. Recall the cliche "life is a process of becoming." "Who one really is" is something inside of that process. Ariel31459 (talk) 02:21, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, meditation didn't do that or anything at all for me really. The teachings just messed me up and ruined my life for a while until I got over them. What you speak of didn't reveal anything in the background. That quote doesn't make sense either.Machina (talk) 03:43, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Think of all the questions that are possible. You or I can answer only a very few of them. Does that cause anxiety for you? Do you ever ask "why am I wondering about that matter in particular?" If so, you have meditated productively. Meditation reveals problems. If one is not prepared to deal with them meditation will not seem useful, and even be uncomfortable.Ariel31459 (talk) 14:55, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Considering that I don’t know too much I’m usually at the mercy of those who sound certain. I do ask myself why I care about certain topics when I really have no interest. But that’s not meditation. Meditation doesn’t reveal anythin, at least for me. All it did was cause problems that were not there before, just like the teachings.Machina (talk) 17:46, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

But that's what I've been saying. You need to construct, not certainty, but guidelines that help you build certainty, and understand what it means to be correct to you. Certainty sucks balls, and any halfwit on the internet like me can act certain. Seriously, what does it mean to you to "know" something? You don't need to be good at philosophy to answer that question, you just need to have an answer that satisfies you. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:15, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * For me to know something is to be certain about it. If you are only pretty sure then that isn’t knowledge. That’s why this whole “true for me” isn’t philosophy or knowledge but rather just weaving the same kind of dream world that these woo types do.Machina (talk) 19:48, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

"Allegedly" punched
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/03/02/politics/trump-executive-order-colleges-free-speech/index.html

"Hayden Williams, a conservative activist who recently made headlines after he was allegedly punched in the face at the University of California Berkeley earlier this week."

Come on CNN... first the activist was "allegedly attacked", now he was even "allegedly punched in the face" (the punch is at 0:12-0:18 of the video on CNN).

I wonder if the next step of CNN would be negating the existence of both guys and the campus. Thinker(unlicensed) 15:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I like CNN. What's your problem? The article you give at the top goes on to say "Video of the incident shows Williams and another man struggling before the man punches Williams in the face, knocking his hat off." The word "alleged" is standard diction when first introducing what might be a crime. Ariel31459 (talk) 17:38, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "The word "alleged" is standard diction when first introducing what might be a crime."
 * Google search: "Allegedly: used to convey that something is claimed to be the case or have taken place, although there is no proof." In this case there are video evidences that the punch happened, so saying that the activist was allegedly punched while being aware of the video evidences that the punch occurred is being dishonest. Thinker(unlicensed) 18:41, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * An allegation is an unproven crime with respect to legal reporting. I fail to see your point. The act itself was reported.Ariel31459 (talk) 19:17, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It's the second time that you are ignoring my previous comment and that you are trying to change the word that has been used in the article (it's "allegedly", neither "alleged" nor "allegation"). No journalist writes that someone has allegedly punched someone else in the face when there is a video evidence of that, like he has to use "allegedly" in the strict legal usage and wait until a judge has established that the punch really happened, unless he is trying to underplay what happened. If you fail to see that, then I understand why you like CNN. Thinker(unlicensed) 21:32, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Would it help if it were swapped out for a tag on the end of each sentence, "or so we're told?" In this day and age a video is no evidence; they can be edited, or may simply record an event staged by somebody. Some kind of disclaimer remains necessary. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 21:34, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You like having discussions on this same subject twice? At any rate, the thing that is funny about these people whining about "conservatives" thoughts being censored is that this generally is not true, at least in the word they are using. Nobody's going to give two damns about, say, people who advocate Austrian school economics, or even if someone is a naive full-on Ayn Rand retard using Facebook to post John Galt's speech in full. The only "conservative" speech people are literally giving a shit about is hate speech. Most rational people ain't going to tolerate that bullshit their private space, and even in public space, while being an ass in public is protected, there is a limit to what is allowed. (You cannot incite violence with words, for instance -- one of these many possibilities why "allegedly" is fine for this article now, so for the second time, quit this bullshit, someone has been arrested on assault charges yes, but I have no problem with being cautious in reporting even still. Being cautious is *MUCH* better than the media trend of making assumptions in reporting and then looking like an ass when shown to be wrong). At any rate, this is Turning Point USA, home of the professor watchlists and whatnot. We know what these fascists think of "free speech" -- speech is free as long as they agree with it. Soundwave106 (talk) 14:10, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

in world where fake news is a scourge that is possibly damaging democracy, with misinformation and lies rife everywhere, its the use of 'allegedly' that outrages you? a word used in dozens of headlines everyday across all media that riles? in story on a site that, as with all media, has a known bias, where the facts of the story were fully reported? this isnt an argument worth having. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "For years you have asked 'Who is John Galt?'" *Radical awesome antifa protestor skateboards in and socks the guy in the face, thus saving humanity from the most boring 30 page speech in history*. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:30, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Would that someone had punched Rand in the Typewriter first. Less violent, and more effective from a pro-active PoV. Kencolt (talk) 19:28, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * While it's fun to wish violence on fictional characters who revel in the deaths of millions, I don't actually want to see violence done to real people I disagree with in order to impede their crappy, ill considered messages. Except nazis.  Fuck nazis.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:49, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "while being an ass in public is protected, there is a limit to what is allowed. (You cannot incite violence with words, for instance -- one of these many possibilities why "allegedly" is fine for this article now"
 * What do you mean? "allegedly" is fine for now because... ? Thinker(unlicensed) 20:37, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * How would this work: "Alleged human being punched in the face." nobsI'm all yea'res 05:04, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

To answer the dumbass' question with finality
Almost every major newspaper has an explicit style guide, when describing an act that is understood to be criminal, no matter the material evidence available, unless the perpetrator has been found guilty in a court of law, to use the word "allegedly" to describe the act. This is a literal restriction all writers are expected to follow, and all editors will verify before publishing an article. Even if the event happening is beyond contest, the explicit form of "Person X did Y to Z" would always be reformed to "Person X allegedly did Y to Z" if Y is an illegal act. Anything less could be construed to be libelous.

This is such a uniform and common writing style, that this cannot possibly be your first exposure to it.

The only reasonable conclusion is that you're a dumbass and should shut the fuck up. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:45, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * And before we talk about "well, style guides should be changed", "allegedly" works fine enough in the English language when it comes to expressing reasonable doubt. This "outrage" over perfectly reasonable word choice is a dumb take on it.

Let's put it this way, spot the difference:
 * 1) CNN: 'Empire' star Jussie Smollett attacked in possible hate crime
 * 2) CNN: Conservative activist allegedly attacked on UC Berkeley campus
 * Thinker(unlicensed) 07:55, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * heres a thought - one story coming a lot earlier than other, perhaps they thought they wouldnt be so hasty in the future? difficult to say even with such in depth research of comparing two stories from probably thousands in the last month. you are drawing huge conclusions from nothing. choice of wording over another, by different writers, for different stories, at different times. show me why this isnt merely a stylistic choice by differing writers. show me other cases, a pattern to suggest this is what they do. show me anything at all.
 * all i got at the moment is a reference to a dictionary definition and your insistence a word can only be used or read one way, and that it is rigidly used this way here, and i can see many problems with that idea. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:00, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "wow they obviously qualified a different word in the sentence to defray legal risk of alleging a crime, that must mean they're bigoted against racist morons like me".  You're a dumb fuck, and I reiterate you should shut the fuck up, and stop pretending like you've got a point.  You don't.  You do actually know you're full of shit.  You know you're putting on a show.  Take those crocodile tears and use them to lube up your shitty opinion and shove it back up your ass where it came from.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:09, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "heres a thought - one story coming a lot earlier than other, perhaps they thought they wouldnt be so hasty in the future?"
 * Yes, it's possible, let's see what they will write in the future...
 * "show me why this isnt merely a stylistic choice by differing writers."
 * It can be, anyway I was replying to the objection that: "Almost every major newspaper has an explicit style guide ... This is a literal restriction all writers are expected to follow, and all editors will verify before publishing an article." Or the writers are restricted to use "allegedly" or the are free to make it a stylistic choice, it cannot be both.
 * "show me other cases, a pattern to suggest this is what they do. show me anything at all."
 * Showing you a pattern would be legit if I had said something like "CNN always something." Here I'm making a point about how CNN presented this case, what kind of pattern should I show?
 * "You know you're putting on a show."
 * If that was the case, then image what kind of character are you interpreting. Thinker(unlicensed) 16:37, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No really, shut the fuck up. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:46, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Accusations of racism from RW and Mods are becoming as meaningful as Jussie Smollett's accusations. nobsI'm all yea'res 18:17, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * a problem i have with your argument style is that is entirely a semantic argument that makes no effort to address any point i made and is just so fucking disingenuous. it now means i have to waste time refuting shit because you ducked out of answering anything in a way that is useful to anyone.
 * jumping in on stylistic choices, your response does not address this at all, and what you did say was nonsense. you say you were responding to another point, which is odd, because its central to your whole argument. if you think the particular wording in an article was deliberate and precise with intention to throw doubt or mislead, then you have to show why you think think it is intentional, why you think isnt a mere style choice or not just poorly written. instead you refer to a comment about style guides that misses the point made in that to quibble over semantics. the point being style guides exist, meaning the use of 'alleged' is not unusual and is encouraged if not required depending on criteria. how rigorously it is applied and how will vary across companies, and with something the size of cnn and the rush to put out content, will probably vary within a single organisation too. its immaterial, both to the point and because no one here is claiming to know exactly the details of cnn's style guide.
 * next up, i asked for a pattern of some kind to show this isnt just some stupid hack taking a note to make sure they are not pre judging anything and just slapping in 'alleged' to cover his arse. or the editor adding some to cover his. but no, you dont need to show previous because you didn't make specific reference to a specific a word to a specific point. no you didnt. you didnt need to. what you need is corroborative evidence. past instances of similar behaviour. something trifling, and your argument is at best trifling, can be damning if its present elsewhere. but no, just bullshit semantics again, unanswered points and a failure to comprehend your own argument.
 * in short we have nothing more than you taking offence at a particular word in an article based on nothing more than it doesnt look right to your eye and thus is a new low.
 * as i understand it cnn has a poor rep in some quarters, and much criticism thrown at it, however justified it maybe. and you come out with this shit. jesus fuck. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:28, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * My name is ikanreed and I approve this "Jesus Fuck". ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:50, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "Let me clear this up for you: you're jawdroppingly bad at reading words, and are quite definitely the one with the problem here." -David Gerard (I remember this)
 * Unlicensed Thinker should be hired to write for some hot outrage porn and feeding the corporate trolls in the process and being daft. Go smash some Keurigs, flush some Gilette razors down the toilet, and burn some Nike shoes and leave us alone and keep your sea lion at home. 21:32, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "it now means i have to waste time refuting shit..."
 * No, you don't. Nobody forced you into this conversation.
 * "if you think the particular wording in an article was deliberate and precise with intention to throw doubt or mislead, then you have to show why you think it is intentional"
 * I think the word "allegedly" was written with an intention to underplay the event because I can't image that the journalist really doubts that the punch happened, or that he is worried of some legal trouble. Does he think that the video might be fake? So that the punch did not happen (special effects? actors?) or happened in another local (again, special effects to make it seem it was on campus?). Everything is possible, but it doesn't sound much probable. Does he think he could get into legal trouble? How? He would say somebody was punched, without saying who throw the punch, he said the police arrested a suspect... and anyway if everything was fake, who would sue the journalist and for what?
 * "asked for a pattern of some kind to show this isnt just some stupid hack taking a note to make sure they are not pre judging anything and just slapping in 'alleged' to cover his arse."
 * It could be even some kind of auto-correction function of Word, we can make up any kind of story... just remember to put "allegedly"...
 * "in short we have nothing more than you taking offence"
 * Do you really think I'm somehow offended? I think you are projecting. I find this kind of articles amusing. Thinker(unlicensed) 21:36, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "I just find it amusing" is a common excuse. I don't buy it that you just find it "funny", you found a problem with it that you deem worthy of sharing with strangers, and you double down when strangers think you're full of crap and can't read.
 * To think AMassiveGay's comment couldn't get any clearer, you still resort to your points. You're really bad at this. You make me feel like I'm debating with a moron. I still remember trying to word my arguments in the clearest language especially after you said you have English as a second language and you...still...didn't...get...my...points. 21:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course there is no objective way in which I can prove to you that I find something amusing. Anyway, compare my posts in this thread with those of ikanreen and AMassiveGay... If I'm "offended" then there is no word for what are they. Thinker(unlicensed) 22:01, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * this is just so transparent. do you know what we are not talking about? anything of worth. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:30, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Research on race demographics
How are they applicable to people of mixed races? This has always confused me when I'm trying to discern if statistics apply to me personally or not. I don't even know how people perceive my race, they usually can't pinpoint it either (as statistics sometimes show some interesting results for people who perceive races). 22:58, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You can read about the US census's handling of race here - census subjects can specify a single or multiple races, including writing in their own descriptors. The FDA has guidance for reporting race in clinical trials here. There's lots of ways market researchers can handle it. Elsewhere, it varies a lot; see e.g. . And in practice people will combine all the complex multi-layered values into simplistic figures, or ignore large numbers of people entirely. --Annanoon (talk) 23:45, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "Race" is a country-specific specific concept – in the US they seem to believe the diversity of humanity can be lumped into five groups (Caucasian, African-American, Asian, Native American/Alaskan, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander) – but that grouping seems very arbitrary. And in other countries, the categories are different – e.g. in the US "Asian" lumps together East Asian, South Asian and Southeast Asian people (but generally excluding Central, North and West Asian people), whereas in the UK it tends to be restricted to South Asian people only. Unless one is limiting the scope of one's research to a single country, I struggle to see how racial categories can really have any research validity. DepressedAustralian (talk) 10:16, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * in the uk its not racial categories but ethnic categories in the census, its incredibly important information. you need a clear picture of the various communities in a country to even begin to know who is struggling, where they are, what to do about it. i understand a lot of work goes into picking which categories are used, but its no easy task. its always going miss groups, have conflicting choices, or the people 'meant' to be one group actually see themselves as another. it can never reflect the actual diversity but it can not be too broad. you have take it in consideration when looking at the results, but its better than not having it, imperfect as it is. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:23, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and since that's important information, I have still no idea how like how well off mixed black/white people are or are mixed asian/white compared to white or asian. This all operates, of course, on a loose and very general definition of race the same way we generalize on say, incarceration rates or income rates based on race/ethnicity. But when I read on those generalizations, I don't know how those stats apply to mixed race people. I'd imagine there might be a similar problem with nonbinary gender as well, now that I think a little more about it. But I think mixed race is on the rise, so I feel there should be more research into mixed black/white, mixed white/asian, and mixed white/latino, and much more, and there's also mixed race people marrying other mixed race people... 21:13, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * i suppose we could say that everyone is mixed race, unless they live on a very remote island, but not helpful at all. bear in mind though that different areas and different people view and capture this information in different ways. you might be comparing apples with oranges AMassiveGay (talk) 21:27, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * They do self-report now in the US. There's been a little meta-research into how well that self-report aligns with common perception, but because of how non-normalized bigotry is that's hard to pin down too. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:19, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * , a Palestinian and Semite, claims to be a person of color. Tlaib has been labeled anti-Semitic. Are Semites people of color? or is Tlaib simply an anti-white racist? nobsI'm all yea'res 19:00, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know, why do you ask? How is this related to LGM's question?Ariel31459 (talk) 19:12, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Simple. Are Palestinian Semites people of color, and are European Semites white? nobsI'm all yea'res 22:05, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I think the US is a bit of an outlier in asking what people's race is, as opposed to their ethnicity or ancestry or language. Here in Australia, I've never seen any official form (census, government, education, employment, healthcare, etc) asking me what my "race" is. Asking for indigenous status (do you identify as Aboriginal, Torres Strait Islander, both or neither) is very common; asking if you speak a language other than English at home (and if so which one) is also rather common. Also sometimes citizenship status, country of birth, country of parents' birth, what ancestries you identify with (Chinese, Italian, English, etc.), what is your religion (always an optional question). But never "race" as such. And all these other things, they do sometimes overlap somewhat with race, but only imperfectly. The US also seems strange in that they like to ask about ethnicity, but very often only seem to care if someone is "Hispanic" or not (and "Hispanic" is a whole bunch of different ethnicities, which don't have much in common with each other beyond a shared language and some degree of shared colonial history)–why this urge to reduce the immense vastness of human ethnic diversity to such a single arbitrary dimension? Americans are weird. DepressedAustralian (talk) 22:26, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You're right. The U.S Census Bureau has a long history of collecting data on race, originally for apportionment of the House. The Constitution allowed states to set requirements for voting. Some state laws classified people as "black" or "white," although some states allowed free blacks to vote. Federal legislation was passed early in t he country's history requiring the Census bureau to collect racial data. Even after the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was passed, the Census Bureau continued to collect data, which then was used in appropriations for Great Society, War on Poverty, and Affirmative Action programs. 03:10, 6 March 2019 (UTC)