RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive297

Neo Nazi compounds should have a disclaimer sign at the entrance
Have the sign say:

"Welcome to the Neo Nazi compound, leave logic and reason outside please".

--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:06, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Uh, I hate to be the first one to point this out to you, but insufficiently advanced logic and reasoning are not the primary problems people have with Nazis. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 03:09, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree since, actually, the Final Solution was planned with quite a logic. More generally, there are perfectly rational people who perpetrate terrible crimes. It's not the absence of logic and rational thinking that makes monsters, it's the absence of empathy. Thinker(unlicensed) 16:38, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hitler and his gang were very logical, indeed it was Nazi era Germans that invented much of what is now modern psychology. Rational thought was a cornerstone of Hitler's ideology, it just had rather too much master race cultism and extreme nationalism in there for this to be a redeeming feature. 17:42, 9 December 2018 (UTC)


 * How about this-

"Welcome to the Neo Nazi compound, please leave all empathy and compassion outside". --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 19:32, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Still seems a bit light-hearted, but that's only a matter of personal taste. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:25, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * From what I understand, and I could be wrong, the "master race" thing is a bit... complicated. The central idea of Nazism was that Germans should work to promote the interests of Germans even at the expense of others.  Not in itself because Germans were "naturally" superior, that was a post hoc justification, but rather because Germans were German.  Germans had, yes, a few things to be proud of and, yes, had contributed a lot to culture and science and so forth, but there was another group that seemed to contribute proportionately far more and "naturally" found its way into dominating academia and art and so on in spite of adversity; Jews.  But if Jews "naturally" found themselves in "control" of everything, that made Jews the natural master race, and if Germans wanted to become dominant in everything... CoryUsar (talk) 06:28, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The German obsession with "Aryan" science led to the ultimate failure of Germany's wartime scientific ambitions, IMHO.--Ɖøn Ĵuan (talk) 10:26, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That the Jews were the 'master race' because they found themselves in academia, art, etc. and so Germany shouldn't have persecuted them is just false. The Jews were a convenient scapegoat for the problems Germany was facing as a result of WWI. After WWI, the Western European powers had been so devastated that they took out, with vengeance, a punishment of Germany; Germany was charged with paying back reparations for all wartime debts incurred and restitution for damages. To make matters worse, the Allies stifled the German economy on purpose to keep Germany down (out of fear of another war like the Great War), limiting the amount of steel that the German manufacturers could produce and the German military, for instance. A desperate economic situation wasn't helped by shortages of everything. Queue entrance for Adolf Hitler. He's a charismatic leader who tells the people what they want to hear (he had this way of saying something and bouncing it off the crowd and then following the line of what he was saying, allowing him to work the crowd and work them into a fervor; ideas that didn't react well with the crowd or get the adulation he wanted he cast to the wayside) and blames the Jews as the source of all the economic troubles, though they absolutely weren't. His rise to power is fueled by promises – promises he's able to deliver – of things that the people desperately want. He rebuilds the German economy, manufactures steel in secret (against the Allies' rules), and rebuilds and strengthens the German military. Hitler's rise is then furthered by the people because he's done so much for them already, so they trust him. This lets him push out other political parties and dissenters and lets Hitler take complete control and power. Hitler's ideas about the 'master race' is another lie that the German people found easy to swallow because it gave them a sense of national pride and it was a unifying factor.


 * It's far more complicated than simply saying that they lacked empathy or that they lacked reason or that nationalism was the problem. It was a combination of a ton of factors. This is a gross oversimplification of the problems that Germany faced and the variables at play, but the point is that the rise of Nazi Germany isn't due to just one thing. It's not just nationalism, it's not just a lack of empathy, it's not just a focus on 'Aryan science,' it's a combination of factors. As a side note, the Slavs were treated way worse than the Jews ever were. Hitler saw the Slavs as the lowest form of life, not the Jews. 17:34, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Rainbows
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JG5zytkypOE Ɖøn Ĵuan (talk) 10:24, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Forced to Buddhism
I guess I am writing because ever since I first read about buddhism it makes like seem awful and that the only sensible choice is to follow their path to liberation. That anything else you choose to do is wrong or unenlightened, I mean why settle for fulfilling desires for temporary joy when you can have eternal peace?Machina (talk) 19:57, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Why settle for this life when you can slit your wrists or blow your brains out and then be taken to a magical land of happiness and rainbows? I honestly have no fucking clue. When a religion blathers endlessly about how great their afterlife is, my only real question is why aren't they committing suicide? And the peer-pressure, tribalistic, "my way is the only way" bullcrap is why even Buddhism is on my shitlist. Because they all do it, even the "moderate" religious groups will still adhere to elements of their doctrine that are just plain wrong from every angle. 20:11, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * What Comrade GC said above. IMO just the very concept of some magical, blissful afterlife is demeaning to this one, real life that we all have. So much to do, so little time; as they say, YOLO. 03:04, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * What ever floats your boat. No judgment from me. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 22:21, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You seem like an interesting person, Machina, but you really do hop on idea trains often. Buddhism has numerous logical issues that don't make sense and don't hold water when examined. Also, the point of Buddhism is not eternal peace; the point of Buddhism is non-existence. Let's look at a couple of the issues that stick out to me:
 * 1. Karma. Karma is a impersonal, unintelligent force likened to a law of nature. Its job is to mete out justice for actions committed in this life.
 * See the problem? Karma is impersonal but its job is to mete out justice. This would require the ability to evaluate actions, decide what is just, and act upon the decision of justice, but karma is impersonal and unintelligent.
 * 2. Reincarnation. Due to karma, actions in this life are punishable or rewarded in the next. The goal is to escape the cycle of rebirth and to stop existing.
 * This one is harder to see just based on this post alone, because you'd need to know about the idea of "no-self" beforehand. Buddhism teaches that there is no soul or immortal part of your current being. But, if there is no immortal part of you (and hence all of you dies when you die), how is there anything to reincarnate? These are two examples I can pull off the top of my head. 00:26, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Those don't sound like decent counterpoints to the statement. What about the personal examples of people who say that have experienced or are "awakened"?2600:1700:1C80:5190:EA:B5DA:6758:22A0 (talk) 01:10, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * What about them? What about people claim to have been abducted by aliens and given generic happy-go-lucky bullcrap important messages from these advanced races? What if I claim that my farts are magical? I mean those are "personal examples" of things people have claimed, but are the true? Given that the claims are extraordinary, and the evidence (or lack thereof) is exceedingly ordinary... Yeah, I think we can chuck them aside wholesale. Now Koi might have a different response, but yeah, my personal view is that every single claim of the supernatural to date has either failed to meet it's burden of proof or has failed to even understand what a burden of proof is. And until these people learn that their claims get thrown into a little file labeled "unproven nonsense with shitty excuses" by me. 01:31, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Certain forms of Buddhism teach that you don't need to be enlightened any more than you already are, and in fact it is your habit of falling asleep in class that is your problem. Ask your best friends to beat you with folded newspaper when they think you are not paying attention. That ought to do it.Ariel31459 (talk) 01:47, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that there is a Jefferson Bible version of Buddhism that essentially amounts to "Learn more, think more, be less ignorant!"? 02:05, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. That is one of many versions.Ariel31459 (talk) 02:22, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Election Editorial Guideline
As we all know, the 2020 election season is going to begin in a few months, which means articles about primaries, candidates, and other campaign-related people/organizations. However, looking at the articles for the past few elections (US, French, UK), a lot of the content is still speculation from the time of the election that has not yet been updated and likely can or will not be updated. As such, I believe we should consider some soft editorial guidelines for election-related articles. So, any ideas? I was thinking maybe a discouragement of electoral punditry in articles. RoninMacbeth (talk) 22:26, 10 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Try to just record lasting facts and not too write too much speculation. See also WP:NOTCRYSTAL and WP:NOTNEWS. 11:01, 11 December 2018 (UTC)


 * When did we become Wikipedia? -- MtD Bogan   21:57, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting that we be more like Wikipedia. I'm saying (or rather, trying to say) that we should avoid speculation along the lines of "What Trump did is totally going to backfire. The South can actually be taken by Clinton, while Trump has no chance of overcoming the Democratic firewall. The election articles are permeated with it years later, and no effort has been undertaken to substantially correct it, simply because the volume makes updating it a goddamn nightmare. Perhaps what I'm really asking for is no more of this "trend-editing" that causes us to only edit political articles when they appear in the news again. While we shouldn't be WP, we also shouldn't be Cracked. RoninMacbeth (talk) 22:13, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with, we should keep the election articles free of speculation. We should gives the Pros and Cons of each candidate, and update their status as needed. Meanwhile, if someone wants to speculate in the saloon bar I don't think that would be too much of an issue as far as I can tell. 22:19, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not disagreeing about the need to keep political speculation out of articles but rather the drafting of evermore "guidelines" and "policies" in the style of The Other Wiki. -- MtD Bogan   22:51, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. But these are special cases that might require a slightly different approach to how we regularly write articles. One standard of quality control isn't going to turn us into WP.
 * While we're discussing this, we should also probably figure out how not to let the shitshow of 2015-2016 repeat. RoninMacbeth (talk) 00:13, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

A dark web counterfeit money crime ring has been busted
https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2018/12/11/dark-web-goldmine-busted-by-europol/#comment-5502964

--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 15:42, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Because I lost the moderator election, should I scream recount?
I am probably not the best guy for the job anyways.RECOUNT!! No? Okay --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:21, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No. Nerd (talk) 01:51, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes.--Don Juan (talk) 09:16, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't be lazy, recount it yourself. 10:36, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I was joking. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 15:01, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure you were. Cardinal Chang (talk) 20:21, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you just going to continue to be an ass or are you actually going to be useful for once?--Don Juan (talk) 23:02, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with cracking a joke. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 22:45, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Bring back the robrail

 * The most astute thing to do is get a third party surrogate, like Hillary tried in 2016, and Gore failed to do in 2000. I can't do it cause I was a candidate, too. nobspiss in my ear 03:39, 3 December 2018 (UTC)


 * For the dumb Brit. Can someone please explain what the heck that means? 00:03, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No.--Ɖøn Ĵuan (talk) 23:19, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hold on, I'm channeling nobs-thought here. I think he's referencing Sanders... Which is insane because it actually drove the vote away from Clinton...  Which is insane because...  Gore...  Didn't insanely drag Nader onto the democratic primary ticket as an incumbent party leader in order to defeat him?  Conspiracy! *GASP* Leave me alone *GASP* you know I have that brain thing or whatever!  *GASP cough cough*  Nope.  Nope, I've lost the thread.  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 06:27, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I love you all
This may or may not be because I'm completely shitfaced rn but I'm glad this site existed. around 2014 I nearly went off the rocker and this site saved me from that crank magnetism. People take places like this for granted and I continue to try to contribute when real life allows me to come. Spoony (talk) 05:07, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * We are happy to be here to help my man. Stay skeptical. 73.201.125.85 (talk) 11:07, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Liking it. +1 12:32, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep on sacrificing virgins to the Goat Lord, my friend!--Don Juan (talk) 14:37, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You know, the reminder that real people benefit from documenting woo and conspiracy theories really is worth remembering. I forget that sometimes.  Thanks.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:51, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey, man, Eugene McCarthy made a lot of sense and seemed well studied when I came across him, and genetics are really cool. At the time I would have never guessed cranks could get labeled as "hybridization experts."  I was honestly excited about the cat/rabbit hybrid (which turned out to be just normal cats with stunted hind legs), thought maybe it was worth a look that an ancient monkey did the dirty with an ancient pig.  But I looked it up, and my first clue that his evidence was... false, came from this site.  And I had to face a couple friends who I had told in my excitement I'd been kinda swept up in it.  And for almost a year, I had to eat the joke about that time when I thought a monkey did the dirty with a pig, and that's how I was born.  Better story than the stork myth, but I doubt it will catch on Gol Sarnitt (talk) 07:10, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Mongolian folk metal
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jM8dCGIm6yc Ɖøn Ĵuan (talk) 00:03, 11 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Gee that's an obscure genre. 10:53, 11 December 2018 (UTC)


 * It's still folk metal. Nothing really obscure about it. Try this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNk3u_m3n40 Cardinal Chang (talk) 17:12, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed, Korpiklaani is a Finnish folkmetal band, but is still one of my favorite rock bands. Ɖøn Ĵuan (talk) 20:53, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Seen them live years back. And back when I drank got utterly pissed with the Bodhrán/tin whistle player from Cruachuan. Not as hazy a memory as drinking with Sólsatfir before they kicked Gummi out and turned shite Cardinal Chang (talk) 20:47, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Lucky bastard, the best I've ever been able to do is watch them on Youtube, I only discovered them around a year back or so. Ɖøn Ĵuan (talk) 22:25, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

For more info on the Tanzania collective and what the producer's views on contemporary music business practices have a listen here https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0bh5hp8 Cardinal Chang (talk) 17:18, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

PLS HALP!!!!!!
I am watching "Mama Mia!" please help I already have cancer. I DON'T WANNA DIE! 184.181.12.187 (talk) 19:25, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Have you tried healing crystals? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:27, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't have that shit. 184.181.12.187 (talk) 19:30, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Have you tried healing crystal meth? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:31, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I tried crystal healing once. It involved crystals, chakra, and me falling asleep with the crystals on my back. 19:35, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I have tried sticking peens in my ears. 184.181.12.187 (talk) 19:38, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I too have tried being in the proximity of rocks. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:59, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you know what a peen is? 184.181.12.187 (talk) 20:08, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I have indeed attended middleschool in the past, but I was talking to GC, thanks. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:17, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That was not the question. 184.181.12.187 (talk) 20:25, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * And yet it answered the question just fine. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:30, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * NO! You're supposed to say, "What is a peen." 184.181.12.187 (talk) 20:33, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Is this some kind of scripted play now? 20:35, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. Are you implying it's some kind of TUOV?  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:36, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Go back to Soviet Buttsia. 184.181.12.187 (talk) 20:43, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry Dave BoN, but I can't do that. I'm not, but I think the BoN is.  20:47, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * What the fuck is a "Dave?" 184.181.12.187 (talk) 20:51, 11 December 2018
 * Ask me what peen is.
 * COOPERATE WITH ME SUNOVABICH!!! 184.181.12.187 (talk) 21:09, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I will find your family and put mustard on their pants. 184.181.12.187 (talk) 21:12, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It's gonna be white mustard. 184.181.12.187 (talk) 21:15, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Am I supposed to be afraid of you? 21:17, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah or the mustard will oppress your family and you will be sad. MWAHAHAHAHAHAHA 184.181.12.187 (talk) 21:20, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I see. That's nice dear. 21:23, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I will go if you ask me what peen is. 184.181.12.187 (talk) 21:26, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

It's not that we don't appreciate the effort. But the bait needs to be better. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:29, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Fuck you. 184.181.12.187 (talk) 21:37, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Now cooperate or mustard will oppress you. 184.181.12.187 (talk) 21:50, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I grew up in the mustard-green fields, you better catch up. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:47, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Just do it I am desperate. 184.181.12.187 (talk) 21:50, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The guy constantly screaming about his peen is desperate? Who knew?  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:52, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * HA! YOU SAID PENIS. LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9M4htrogqA 184.181.12.187 (talk) 21:58, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually he said "peen", but who gives a rat's ass? A penis isn't really all that special unless it's in a porno. 22:21, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Who is that BoN and why is he so insane? 68.0.189.224 (talk) 22:43, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I neither know nor care. 22:57, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It's block time! Ɖøn Ĵuan (talk) 23:27, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Lmao, what just happened. 01:44, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * A lunatic, who for some reason felt it was needful to attempt to get some sort of advice on something but we don't quite know what but it seemed to be kinda maybe possibly psueudosciency somehow devolved the whole thread into threats about mustard.


 * Hey, you asked. Kencolt (talk) 07:49, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks, I just saw penis. 14:51, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Woman dies from brain-eating amoebas after using neti pot
https://abc30.com/health/woman-dies-from-brain-eating-amoebas-after-using-neti-pot/4867608/

I think this is worthy of inclusion for any neti pot article or reference.


 * The article said that she used tap water in the pot. Pity she didn't read the instructions or warning labels.Phantom666 (talk) 18:50, 12 December 2018 (UTC)Phantom666
 * And that it's dangerous pseudoscientific garbage. Pity about that part too.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:01, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem to me that is pseudoscience. Thinker(unlicensed) 20:09, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Depends on if you use it for chronic symptoms, I guess ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:36, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

The illusion of a noun?
https://www.quora.com/How-is-Buddhism-not-nihilism

This is an excerpt from the third answer on the page (or the whole thing in case it shifts):

You asked - "How is Buddhism not nihilism?"

Reading your preamble I am so sorry that you have been led to such a mistake impression or such a gross misunderstanding about Buddhism.

This is what happens when all you see in the West are Buddhist monks leisurely going about their chanting and pastoral duties or you see so called professed Western Buddhists just indulging in yoga meditation as if that totally sums up Buddhist practice for them, 'dumbing' their mind senseless, as a means to de-stress from the rat race. That is not what 'meditation' is for, just as 'wushu' is not simply about martial arts.

I assure you that if you take a quick trip to the heartland of Buddhism in China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, Singapore, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, you will see there the Buddhist worker ants working hard to churn out manufactured goods for the world to consume and enjoy. These millions of busy Buddhist Asian worker ants are not in any way taking a nihilistic approach to their lives.

I begin by saying that Buddhism is not about 'nihilism' because the Buddha said so himself. As they say in Western terms - directly from 'the horse's mouth'!

Buddhism is not called The Middle Way or The Middle Path for nothing. And it definitely does not mean everything in moderation like what you read in Western interpretation of Buddhist scriptures either.

The Middle Way refers to the exegetical or epistemological formulae used in Buddhist metaphysics to train you to shift your mindset from thinking in 'absolute' terms in our conventional world of 'duality', 'relativity' and ''subjectivity' to one where you think with ambivalence, with indifference, nonchalantly, and with equanimity.

The difficulty with thinking with equanimity, like treating everything as not worth giving more than a token notice, is that it requires you to think as if 'you' do not exist, that that you have no cognition, no self-consciousness, of an Ego of Self. There is no 'I' or 'Me' or 'My' or 'Mine' 'mind' 'thinking'.

I want you to note early in the piece the two words 'mind' and 'thinking', for these two words comprise the sum total of what Buddhism is all about. Buddhism essentially deals with 'ignorance or delusion' of the 'mind', and also the emotional 'craving or clinging or attachment' of the 'mind'.

And this is essentially why Buddhism cannot be a religion or a philosophy because it is more about human psychology! In fact the Buddha said that the 'mind-consciousness', as the term is used in Buddhism, is the 'creator' of all things. Before you start deriding or ridiculing the Buddha, please note that Western philosophers have independently come to the same conclusion. The most famous recent one is Descartes the French Philosopher who said - 'I think, therefore I am [if I do not, then I am not].'

The Middle Path exegesis goes like this - 'Neither X nor 'not X'.

It seems a very weird, abstruse and evanescent meaningless formulae, especially when conditioned upon egoless-ness, like asking a humanoid computer to think for us.

Take your question for example. If becomes - "Buddhism is neither about 'nihilism' nor 'no nihilism'". It does not matter if you were to rephrase it to the contrary position - 'Buddhism is neither about 'theism' nor 'no theism'.

Why this strange convoluted and conditioned esoteric almost arcane formulae?

Simple! In this human world of perpetual incessant and unrelenting unstoppable change, it can only be a world of perpetual 'motion', of perpetual 'movement', of perpetual 'flux', of perpetual 'evolution', [Oops! There goes Christianity out the window!], nothing of a permanent substrate, tangible of intangible, [and for ease of discussion we shall simply call this thing a 'noun'], can be found that is a continuum from one point in a moment in time that carries over intact to the next moment in time.

Note, and I wish to make this thoroughly clear, there is no denying about the full and actual sensual reality of your 'experiencing', [let us get used to not using the illusory 'noun' and stick to active or intransitive 'verb's], your 'thinking', your 'doing', your 'working', your 'eating' and 'sleeping' and your 'being' etc. But beyond your 'experiencing' etc. the 'verb' can never renascent and crystallise into a 'noun', an immutability that carries over to the next moment in time.

Let us think!

We are a different 'we', you are a different 'you', and I am a different 'I', physiologically and physically speaking, from one moment in time to the next. The tree in your front yard is a different tree in the very next moment in time. The world we live in is a different world in the very next moment in time. In fact the universe expands by 8-10 miles every second! The stars you see in the night sky might no longer exist! The little midges you see around the rose bush might not be around the next day.

You think you are always around and it is the same 'you', because you see yourself in the mirror each morning when you shave. But it is definitely a different 'you', if anything you are a day closer to your destined end-time, and that is a certainty of a difference. But viewed through eternity you are a different person from one moment in time to the next. Trust me.

In fact, I can prove this without waiting till we are both in eternal heaven to check out this hypothesis about earthlings.

When you see me, the time it takes for your mind and senses to register and process and compute what you perceive of me, and the imagery is then realised by you, you are already 'seeing' ('verb') me in the (nebulous) (will explain later) 'past' but in the (nebulous) 'present' of your (nebulous) 'now' of this (nebulous) 'moment'.

Time - past, present and future, and year and date and time, are all nebulous because there is no absolute fixed point which can be called the 'beginning' and by deduction the 'ending'. We do not really know when Jesus was born or died and this setting of time based on the rotation of the earth around the sun is just a human device. Is it the same standard clock being used in the other planets of the rest of the cosmos? The 'past', 'present' and 'future' have meaning only by reference to each other. Time is both elastic and relative. Five minutes waiting for a lover is like five hours! Five hours with a lover is like 5 minutes!

The 'phantasm' that cannot be grasped is called 'sunyata' in Buddhism. It has been variously translated into English as meaning 'void' or 'emptiness' or 'illusion' but it does not come close to the real meaning that it has in Sanskrit. We should invent a new word or just adopt the Sanskrit word 'sunyata' meaning - 'this kaleidoscopic spectre of a phantasmagoria of phenomena that cannot be grasped as a permanent absolute substrate that exists in continuum from one point in a moment of time to the next'.

But 'sunyata' also refers to the fact that there is nothing that can be grasp as as a permanent absolute substrate that exists in continuum from one point in a moment of time to the next that is totally identical and exact when viewed by different subjects or objects (basically what we Buddhists would describe as 'sentient' beings i.e. with mind-consciousness). Take a cow and a dung beetle both staring at the same cow pat of a cowdung. What does each see of and in the cowdung?

How can we be 'nihilistic' with the 'sunyata' that is the key doctrine in Buddhism, when 'sunyata' is beyond grasping?

But this is the grace of merit of Buddhism! For knowing that all is 'sunyata' we can accordingly bespoke our mindset and psyche and attitude towards life and death!

We can change the 'negative' and depressing that is the 'phantasm', the 'emptiness', the 'void' and the 'illusion' that is 'sunyata' into something 'positive' and constructive!

We can manage this immutable quality of the world of perpetual incessant and unrelenting unstoppable change to value-add to our life, to turn over a new leaf, to change our karmic destiny, to repent and make amends and redeem ourselves, to learn from our mistakes, to be able to dream and realise our dreams, to aim for the stars!

Why? In a world of change we can use the medium of 'change' inherent and extant in 'sunyata' to change ourselves and also change the world!

Why is all this possible? As the Buddha explained - we and only we ourselves can put an end to our karmic suffering in 'samsara'. The immutable law of karma is comprised in and integral to this 'sunyata'. It is just an eschatological version of the law in physics of - 'every action as a corresponding reaction'. The Buddha said - 'Good begets good and bad begets bad'. Therein lies the solution that is 'salvation'. This is the soteriological solution given by the Middle Way, of understanding the 'sunyata' behind the conventional worldly reality we have of our mortal lives. We can expiate our adverse karmic residue and consequences. We can change our present life for the better and even extricate ourselves from future rebirth in 'samsara'.

And that is why Buddhism is not 'nihilistic'!

I thought that it would provide context, basically saying that since thing are always in flux that there is no permanent noun or fixed object.Machina (talk) 21:46, 12 December 2018 (UTC)


 * It reads like a rewriting of the word noun.
 * This is a long rand that doesn't touch on the relevant definitions at all. Buddhism is not at all nihilist or even existentialist in nature?  It's 100% transcendentalist, suggesting meaning is more fundamental than existence?  Nihilism alleges there is no purpose intrinsic or extrinsic, and existentialism says that meaning is attached to or derived from existence.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 01:12, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the bit about nouns.Machina (talk) 02:57, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That was... One of the saddest thing's I've read in a long time. From this misappropriation of Descartes to the word-salad that was the definition of "sunyata" to the absurdity that was his casual ignoring of logical binaries, reading this was a complete and thorough waste of my time. Sigh. Also, can we appreciate, just for a moment, the irony of using nouns to argue that nouns don't really mean anything? (EDIT: quick heads up, I have no context for whatever you guys are talking about.) 03:44, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Abolition of Monarchy?
Please enjoy and discuss. RoninMacbeth (talk) 07:52, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * i'm not watching a youtube. Does it make any suggestions as to what we replace it with that isnt objectively awful? AMassiveGay (talk) 09:37, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * ok i did watch it. kind of. wank. complete and utter. why do people post youtube videos? the are always always shite. the monarchy costs money? big whoop. its hereditary? Yawn. what do you replace it with that isnt fucking awful? no answer there. AMassiveGay (talk) 09:50, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe in the near future we can replace all politicians with cuddly robots. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 10:12, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * As far as I remember, the British monarchy generates enormous sums of money for the government directly and indirectly (especially per tourism and on exports of products relating to British/royal culture. The money part is pretty moot. Queen Elizabeth and her kin are cash cows. If you want to talk about a royal family that spends a lot more than the country could possibly gain, go no further than the Spanish Royal family. They are a lot less visible and have a sliver of the influence QE II has. Several members or in-laws have been charged with fraud (or imprisoned) and their latter history and connection with Franco makes them slightly (ever so slightly) suspect. But if you want to get into the hard core Royal Families who waste money by the cargo-ship-container-full, just look at the king of Swaziland, who consumes an enormous chunk of the poor countries GDP with a personal fortune estimated at half of Queen Elizabeths...living in dripping luxury while people live like peasants and a quarter of the people are dying of AIDS. Despite ruling a country of only 1.5 million (1 million of which live below the poverty line), he recently expected his grandeur to be worth a new royal plane, a340 which is bigger than the plane available to Queen Elizabeth. Somehow, this king is actually loved (so it seems) so good luck getting rid of him. Other cash consumers are the Kings of Saudi Arabia, Brunei, Morrocco and Jordan. Saudi Arabia in particular is utterly littered by minor princes with luxury palaces. True, the average Saudi is comparatively well off, but its not due to the royal family. They'd be stinkin rich if it weren't for the spoilt, crazy insane colony of royal wealthy brats. Shabi  DOO  12:58, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Shabidoo summed it up nicely, the British monarchs bring in a massive amount of money. --RWRW (talk) 13:56, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Am I the only person here who actually watched the video? Because it seems like I am. 14:03, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The guy in the video states one of the reasons he opposes the monarchy is his dislike for theme being born into privilege and wealth. Is it any different to normal children born into rich families? He sounds a lot like a communist to me. Looking through his other videos he clearly has hard-left views (and terrible choice in films). He also states that the Queen does have power and he cites the Queen's speech (where she opens Parliament and outline Government's policy). He criticises her for reading out the Conservative's austerity programme. He completely ignores the fact that she doesn't actually write the speech or have any say over it, the government does. If ol' Jezza gets elected, she will have to read out a socialist speech. With regards to money, he claims that because France gets more tourism than the UK, it means that monarchy mustn't be that popular to outsiders. That has to be the worst argument for abolition I have seen in a while. If the monarchy ever does get abolished, it will be amusing to see these people justify the inevitable reduction in tourism. --RWRW (talk) 13:56, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Given that most left-of-center schools of political thought focus on social hierarchy and how to counter it, it seems rather inappropriate to throw around the label of "communist", especially since he isn't advocating anything in this video aside from removing the royal family's official political influence (ignoring that they could still influence things unofficially and/or indirectly) and forcing them to stop relying on the British taxpayers for their income (seems somewhat fair), and all on the grounds that people shouldn't be born into power with a silver spoon up their asses. So it seems to me at least that while there are indeed valid criticisms that can be leveled at this video and it's contents, you (collective, but especially RWRW) have chosen to attack the guy for things he either didn't say, or things that play into a strawman version of the video. 14:14, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * the entirety of the video is about cost. so what? nothing that is not known to everyone. to only allusion to 'influence' was the queens speech - something written by the government stating their agenda for the year. nothing to do with the queen. neither is austerity. the suggestion that the queen has any say or even supports this is just bullshit. they do not influence government in any way. ultimately, any argument against the monarchy is just and utter bullshit unless it details what to replace it with - something which no one seems to want to do, not least this chap. im no fan of the monarchy. but what do you replace it with? its not good enough to call for the end of something - that bits easy - and have plan for what comes next. you only have to look at brexit to see how fucking poorly that turns out. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:40, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I imagine that the plan is a United Republic of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Perhaps constructed along the lines of the modern German Federal Republic, with a theoretically powerful President, but with the majority of the powers residing with the Prime Minister and Parliament? RoninMacbeth (talk) 22:02, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * and how do we benefit from this? how do we benefit by making a ceremonial position theoretically powerful? how do benefit from this newly politicised post, and losing the monarchy's chief asset - it being apolitical? how do benefit from the shit show of another election when its hard enough to get folk to vote for the ones we already have? what does that even look like? what kind of changes to current system is required? even if it were purely ceremonial, elected or appointed = a shit show. what ever problems the british system has, the monarchy is not one of them. i kinda need more than a vague 'hereditary is bad' before i can get even consider getting rid of the one aspect of british establishment that does what its supposed to. trump is not selling me on the idea of a presidentAMassiveGay (talk) 22:59, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hell if I know, I'm not a British Republican. I just wanted to see what people outside LeftyTube thought about it. RoninMacbeth (talk) 23:45, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Nobody is ever going to be able to abolish social hierarchies, and the effort will always do more harm than good. What you actually achieve when you try is simply removing the ones that are obvious and public (like the British royals) and replacing them with hierarchies that are extremely secretive and hard to trace (like the activities of most billionaires).  You don't really want 'meritocracy' either, it turns into a Red Queen's race, it privileges driven people with too much ginger in their arses, and directly harms people who want lives of their own rather than jumping through an endless series of flaming hoops.  My opinion is that the British royals are some of the hardest working people in show business.  You couldn't pay me enough to live in that gilded cage. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 04:19, 9 December 2018 (UTC)


 * It's not true that the Royals cost money. The entirety of the sovereign grant (the Royals income) is paid by the Crown Estate, which is basically everything the Queen owns that has been bundled into a company. The Crown Estate is in a constitutional arrangement where it pays 100% tax, and about a quarter of this is sent back to the Queen and family because it might otherwise seem unfair. Basically abolishing the Royals would cost the British taxpayer over £12 billion. There's a reason no sane people support the idea of completely removing the Queen. 22:29, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the idea is that the majority of the Crown's lands would be seized by Parliament and turned into property of a new Republic, thus cutting the Royals off from any of their state sources of income. RoninMacbeth (talk) 23:48, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * In fact, he actually says that at around 11:22 or so in the video. RoninMacbeth (talk) 00:05, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * As someone who subscribes to the more leftward schools of thought I get where he's coming from, however the whole thing seems like more trouble than it's worth for a family that is essentially an over-glorified figurehead. If he really wanted things to change he should (in my opinion) focus on shaking up parliament, since that's where the real power is anyway. 01:20, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed on all fronts. I think it kind of demonstrates a worrying tendency for LeftyTube to embrace the theoretical aspect of leftist politics rather than its practical benefits. Calling for socialist revolution is understandable, but what's troubling is the lack of concern for what should happen next. They seem to be like Ozymandias in Watchmen, saying it'll work out in the end, only for Dr. Manhattan to remind him that nothing ever ends. RoninMacbeth (talk) 02:05, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The monarchy, and all its glitz and panoply and tradition and all the rest of it "work" - ditto the Lord Mayor and City of London, Black Rod and kilts "etc, etc, etc" - and most people accept that any alternatives are likely to cost more and be far more boring. Anna Livia (talk) 00:18, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

The worst monarchs in the world
It's time we end the horrible tyranny of the king and queen of prom. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 04:22, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * My question for you is the same I would ask for the original YouTuber. Can a British monarch issue a law? To be more specific, can the monarchs pass laws without the approval of Parliament? Because the inverse is most certainly true, and that is an indicator of where the real power lies. 04:41, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The English Bill of Rights was issued for a reason, IMHO. Ɖøn Ĵuan (talk) 14:40, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a lot of weight being placed on the word "can", there. There's a lot of anti-democratic powers british monarchs nominally have that haven't been used in centuries, and the answer would fundamentally hinge on the rest of the government's willingness to follow those orders.  It's the same with "constitutional" in the US.    ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:38, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair point, though I still hold that the bulk of power resides within parliament and not the monarchy. 16:04, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The British monarch cannot personally issue a law, the constitutional right to do so was removed along with many other nominal powers after a number of statutes like the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and other acts that have chipped away at it, and recently the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011. However the monarch can still by constitution right make treaties with other countries. 17:50, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * So if the Queen wanted to collude with Putin, theres nothing Parliament or GCHQ could do about it? nobspiss in my ear 08:13, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * the queen has the 'right' to do lots of things under royal prerogative. she has the 'right' to make treaties in the sense she is the head of state, and its her job to sign on the dotted line, buts thats the extent of her rights. there is no freedom to act. everything is done on advice from the government. think of the crown as you would of a president, but with no agency of their own. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:28, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * A better descriptor would be "puppet", IMHO. Ɖøn Ĵuan (talk) 10:51, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * thats a descriptor that implies some level of deception, gullibility, and/or obsequious acquiescence. that does not do the monarchy, whether you for it or against it, justice. there is an obvious level of artifice about the whole thing and thats necessary for it all to work. there are no spineless dupes or gullible simpletons involved or required. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:15, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Internet outage for Bongolian
My sucky internet service is out until Tuesday or Wednesday, so I won't be able to moderate too much till then. I'll try to check in once a day though. Bongolian (talk) 21:25, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * May the Internet Gods bless you with a speedy return to service, friend.--ڤ (talk) 21:46, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you, . Sorry that I missed the Coop vote on Darkmaster. Good work, my fellow-Sysops & Mods for drawing this to a relatively quick conclusion. Bongolian (talk) 22:12, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, . I believe that we each have the right to a speedy trial, even one where half of the jurors are drunk and the other half are worshiping goats.--Ɖøn Ĵuan (talk) 23:07, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I finally have internet again. Hooray! Bongolian (talk) 04:21, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The Goat Lord has showered you with fortune, friend, do not take His gifts for granted. Ɖøn Ĵuan (talk) 18:55, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Looks like Zimbabwe is in crisis yet again
https://apnews.com/04bd573977754a17b60e91e881876a19

Not attempting to sound insulting. Their currency switch seems to be causing major problems. I am no economist but something is being done wrong. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:01, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah their government probably hyper-inflated the currency to try to jumpstart the economy that's been tanking. You've got to remember that the whole country is very unstable right now anyway (they had a coup d'état in November of 2017). Of course, hyperinflation isn't a long-term (or even good short-term) solution to a dying economy, so it got out of hand and now everything's really bad. I believe in 2016 the economy even collapsed. So really, hyperinflation is like a defibrillator that the provisional government is trying to use to jump-start what's left of their ruined economy. A laudable effort, but it isn't going to work. They've got to form a new government, get their country all unified and backing one democratically elected leader, and hope this works because if it doesn't they're really screwed. Of course, a constitution with provisions against corruption and some form of checks and balances would help, along with outside help from other nations (à la the G7 nations). 04:17, 12 December 2018 (UTC)


 * What about switching their currency with the Euro or British pound? --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:36, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I imagine that Brexit will cause some instability with both for a while, so I'd advise against both. I mean, I don't know enough about Zimbabwe's economy to know if they want an undervalued currency or not. RoninMacbeth (talk) 17:39, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I mean this is kind of obvious. The previous regime screwed up Zimbabwe's economy through hyper-inflation and mass production of notes. So what does the next regime do? They try to fix the hyper-inflation, through hyper-inflation. It failed and made things worse? No shit Sherlock. 18:14, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I know a perfect use for economically worthless money- Toilet Paper. At this rate that is what will probably happen. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:51, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Money makes really bad toilet paper. Probably just use it as kindling, except the smoke would be toxic. 19:25, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * this new plastic cash is even worse for toilet paper or kindling. AMassiveGay (talk) 00:41, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * American currency is made from soft, durable fabrics. Its only downside as TP is that it doesn't dissolve in the toilet.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 01:14, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Compost maybe? At least you could get food that way. Paper is biodegradable. Growing crops seems to be the best food source. Seriously though, the terrible plan of hyper inflation will only put more stress on a foundation that was not stable to begin with. War might start in Zimbabwe if their government cannot get it's act together. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 03:28, 13 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Why does it seem like only idiots ever manage to get into power in Zimbabwe? Ɖøn Ĵuan (talk) 08:41, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Because that's what happens when you violently annex a country, enslave the natives, don't tell them how your stuff works, treat them like crap, get violently overthrown, have a crappy (probably) racist dictatorship enacted in your place, have that dictatorship overthrown by a crappy Marxist dictatorship, and then finally have that dictatorship overthrown by a (possibly still Marxist) military dictatorship, which is still crappy. And that is how modern Zimbabwe went to shit, any questions? 13:54, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I the particular case of Zimbabwe, we know a bit more than just the general form of colonialism sucking. In particular, Zimbabwe was part of the whole Rhodesia occupation thing, and had, well, they called it a civil war, but a rebellion against a white supremacist government, a rebellion run by two competing communist movements, Mugabe's Maoist faction, and another more Russian aligned faction that got consumed later.  They seized land from predominatly white, mostly formerly Rhodesian farmers, and for a while poverty was improving in the country, until a bipartisan United States law put massive sanctions on the country(for being "racist" against the poor, defenseless rhodesian farmers),  and improvements immediately stagnated.  Part of getting sanctions lifted included less communist government policies, which included a specific big-ass mistake.  They let their now-private banks print currency, under specific circumstances that had complex legal conditions attached.  By an impossible miracle, those banks immediately found ways to put themselves into those situations.  Oops, suddenly your currency is worthless.
 * Keep in mind, that while the economic turmoil of Zimbabwe does have a lot of blame to law on white supremacist settlers left behind by the Brits and US trade imperialism, Mugabe was a huge piece of shit who brought in North Korean soldiers to slaughter dissidents, along with jailing political opponents, and granting his own office undemocratic powers. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:52, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Mugabe fucked over his country when he kicked out all of those white farmers, they were the ones that really ran the Zimbabwean economy. I know I'll get some backlash for this, but there really was a case of reverse racism in Zimbabwe at this time, and it only serves to further demonstrate why racism of any kind will fuck everyone over in the long run. Ɖøn Ĵuan (talk) 16:55, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I mean, it did indeed cause some of the financial strife. But "these people who literally invaded and took our lands at gunpoint should be allowed to keep them because it's economically stable" is a tough sell, politically. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:13, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * in my recollection zimbabwe was remarkably stable for quite a while until the land seizure and accompanying violence gave them some level of pariah status. dont quote me on that, im probs mis remembering AMassiveGay (talk) 20:57, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Zimbabwe was never "remarkably stable", Zimbabwe and political stability don't go together. Ever since Rhodesia unilaterally declared independence from the UK, only to be recognized as a sovereign state by literally no one, followed by a 15-year long guerilla war waged by pissed off black Zimbabweans hellbent on both getting vengeance on their oppressors and achieving political freedom, and when a peace agreement is finally brokered, and all seems to be going well, the leader of the rebels decides that power is too sweet, shrugs his shoulders and says "fuck this democracy bullshit", becomes drunk on power and proceeds to single-handedly wreck the new fledgling nation, and in a "Shaggy Dog story" scenario as TVTropes puts it, the old fuck gets thrown out of office, put under house arrest, and everything seems to be going well, only for it to turn out that the New Boss is exactly like the Old Boss, just as dumb, power-mad, and incompetent as the old one. Really, the story of Zimbabwe and Mugabe are literally the old saying "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" brought to life. Ɖøn Ĵuan (talk) 00:33, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * that potted history skimps on vital detail and the strokes to broad for any relevance here. what we saying stable is here? for a nearly a decade it was. certainly by the standards of comparable african nations. early nineties to the end of the century. no good reason why it wouldnt have continued then those land seizures, with the accompanying violence and corruption involved, their whole economy collapsed. i remember the refugees appearing and the protesters outside their embassy have been a permanant fixture ever since. they're out of the commonwealth and all aid is stopped. nothings changed since. still a pariah state. still no real aid and its not changing anytime soon, same arseholes in power - different head, same party. where do you go from there? AMassiveGay (talk) 01:57, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Even during that period of relative "stability" Zimbabwe was still going down the crapper, with Mugabe consolidating his power behind the scenes, effectively undoing the goals that the ZANU-PF fought for in the Rhodesian Bush War, such as a prospering democratic state free from the control of the oppressive white landlords, they did manage to get rid of the whites in power, but they merely exchanged one set of corrupt despots with another set. That's how revolutions always work, once the old guys get overthrown and the new guys get into power, they don't want to relinquish that power. That's one thing that separates the American Revolution from most other (violent) revolutions, everyone was expecting Washington to undo the goals of the American Revolution and crown himself King, but instead, like Cincinnatus, he relinquished that power instead of holding onto it, thereby allowing for democracy to reign supreme, at the expense of autocracy. Give me one example of any other (violent) revolution wherein once the old despots were overthrown, the new ones didn't revert back to the status quo. It happened in Iran, it happened in China (twice, there's the Xinhai Revolution of 1911, which overthrew the Qing dynasty but then saw the balkanization of China into numerous different fiefdoms controlled by and fought over by different warlords, and then with the rise to power of Mao Zedong after the Chinese Civil War), it happened in France several different times, such as with Napoleon after the French Revolution, again after the July Revolution, and again during the Revolution of 1848. It happened across Europe after the Revolutions of 1848, it happened in Russia after the Russian Revolution and ensuing Civil War, it happened in Haiti after the Haitian Revolution, with Jacques Dessalines crowning himself "Emperor of Haiti", it happened in Mexico several different times both during and after the Mexican Revolution, it happened in Cuba with the rise to power of Fidel Castro and his cronies, it happened in Vietnam with the rise of Ho Chi Minh, it happened in Egypt and multiple other Arab countries after the Arab Spring, with Tunisia being the only exception, etc etc etc. Really the only example I can think of other than the American Revolution where in the aftermath of a violent revolution didn't suck was Ireland, and even Ireland was subject to a (relatively brief) Civil War. America didn't get off lightly either, while the aftermath of the American Revolution wasn't as bad as other places, that's only because our Founding Fathers got their heads out of their collective asses and did something about it to prevent the nascent republic from spiraling into anarchy and then ultimately autocracy. Ɖøn Ĵuan (talk) 15:11, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * They may have only delayed the inevitable, but yeah. This is why I, an admitted Socialist, reject one of the core premises of Socialist thought. Revolutions don't flipping work, ergo we should not attempt them. 15:33, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Socialism is an umbrella term for a wide variety of different left-wing ideologies, some socialists advocate reform rather than revolution, although they mostly got blindsided by the rise of the Marxists, and their obsession with, and practical deification of, the entire concept of revolution. So while revolution is a key premise of many different socialist ideologies, not all advocate revolution. Eduard Bernstein was one of these reformists, believing that capitalist society could be made increasingly socialistic from within, thereby negating revolution as a necessary part of socialist strategy. Ɖøn Ĵuan (talk) 16:27, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * when you say revolutions dont work, whats the criteria for work? im assuming we mean violent the ones. the cuban revolution looked like it worked. the russian revolution did work. what counts as failure? if you've trying to oust a regime and you failed. what if you win and gain power, whats failure there? no democracy? thats often never the intent in the first place. who for? it seems very rare to me that revolutions are between 2 parties. they seem to me the existing power vs all comers - disparate groups with different goals often against each other. the existing power ousted, the group that gains ascendence - their revolution worked. all funded by outside forces whose criteria for success is merely that someone they dislike doesnt get in.
 * @don juan not really sure what you would expect from these revolutions. they either occured in periods where democracy wasnt really a thing or at best a novelty or occur in places wheres its democracy had never had a foothold, fought by people who had no intention of democracy, fought by people with experience of office and elections, but they know to use an ak and they get results. and if it were, and you are sitting in the newly acquired presidential palace, victorious. now what? your country wracked by bitter civil war, shattered infrastructure, bitterly divided people, no economy, with pockets of resistance dotted all over the place. call elections? your foreign backers will only keep funding the rebuilding as long they get access resources, but your former allies have got something to say about that. how long before you just another strongman? and that crown does look good on you. then when your overthrown, the template is set - violence not ballots gets power. look at south america, all their coups and counter coups down there. look at most of post colonial africa. look at the middle east. tyrants and dictators flourish because we, the west, and russia make damn sure they do. we cannot give a fuck about democracy. this hasnt died with the cold war AMassiveGay (talk) 17:45, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Grammar Commie
https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=RationalWiki:Saloon_bar&diff=2021496&oldid=2021495 Why? Doublethink (talk) 05:16, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You deleted someone elses' edit as a resolution to an edit conflict, they're within their rights to revert you back. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 06:23, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * This belongs at the Coop, not here. Ɖøn Ĵuan (talk) 08:22, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It doesn't belong here but it also absolutely does not belong at the coop., you accidentally removed GrammarCommie's comment and that's why your edit was undone. CowHouse (talk) 12:45, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It belongs on my talkpage. 13:43, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Exclusively Games.
What is your guys thoughts on this? Seems a reasonable thing being smeared by the completely unbiased gaming journalism. https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/exclusively-games-protecting-escapism#/
 * Hmmm.... And obsession with "ethics in gaming journalism" (right, that's why Quinn gets rape and death threats near constantly), Bringing up the Wall Street Journal for no reason whatsoever, almost as if there's a grudge there, blathering on about free speech, but with no understanding of the complexities therein... Looks like user:TheDarkMaster2 is back to bring us more GamerGate bullcrap, harassment, petulant whining, threats, overall toxicity "wisdom". 13:41, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * On the face of it, it seems like a really dumb thing. Then you dig in, and find out who the creator is.    "He's unfairly smeared by the gaming press just because he personally repeatedly threatened people and organized mass harassment campaigns".  Get out of here.  He's a piece of shit.  There's no coincidence that "no politics" is something said by someone who is also called, in conservative media, as a "conservative commentator".  Literally everything about this is a lie, by a liar.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:34, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * He's never described himself as a conservative only others have described him as such. He's taken a political test and landed on the center. Christ what's your source fucking Polygon? The same site who are started the drama by lying about him in an article. You claim he's harassed people. Sorry but exposing actual fucking pedophiles in the Magic Community seems like a fucking good idea. How could you oppose that? Scumbag50.86.51.202 (talk) 00:09, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Inability to stay on topic, vague wording, Centrist shielding, red herring topics... Either TDM2 is socking or right-wingers really are as generic and replaceable as I sometimes suspect them of being... 00:12, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * My God, how was I off topic you disingenuous prick. As if saying The right wing is evil is so original. Centrist shielding? Do you even Know Jeremy? Or the people who he's supposedly "harassed"? A woman who's lied again and again. Ffs one of his employees was reported on by The Dot with a picture of a mugshot. THAT WASN'T even him. How are these people victems?50.86.51.202 (talk) 02:11, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't forget the constant unprovoked fiery insults and personal attacks, and the time-honoured debat tactic of "nuh uh." I have lots of experience with these kinds of guys, and I knew from the moment I saw them comment that they were eventually gonna get banned. (Edit: In restrospect that made me sound smug and cocky, and I didn't mean it that way. Sorry about that. My point was, this type of person is really really (almost weirdly) common, and I've interacted with them a lot.) You Won't BELIEVE What Astronomers Found In This Neutron Star!  - Number Four WILL Shock You!  03:39, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Never underestimate the power of stupid people with an internet connection. Bonny BoN, Don't mind me, I'm just here with popcorn and peanuts to watch the latest round GamerGate-esque stupidity. And yeah, when it comes to people using the "politics free zone" argument (can we take a moment to admire the hypocrisy of people who normally jeer at safe spaces now trying to build safe spaces for themselves?) there are a lot of people who tend to just want an echo chamber from whence to spew forth their noxious views. So yeah, there's that. And that's why I'm against avoiding politics, ever. The more people talk about politics, the more we look at and examine each others views, the less power bullshit like this has. 04:54, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, discussing/debating politics only sometimes works. Some people just won't be convinced of anything, ever, and after a point you realise that they're just here to start fights and cause trouble. That's why I don't bother wasting my energy devoting large amounts of time debating someone.  If you're three pages and a hundred and fifty posts into a debate with someone, and neither of you has reconsidered their position, then one or both of you have your heads in the sand and are refusing to change their mind.  At that point I just decide that they're entitled to their opinion, keeping in mind that opinions can be plain wrong, and don't change what the facts are. I decide not to be bothered by them at that point, and leave them be in their own little bubble of delusion. Provided they don't break any rules, that is. If they start causing real trouble, or have been from the start, then it's best to tell them you're not having any of their shit, and banning them.  You Won't BELIEVE What Astronomers Found In This Neutron Star!  - Number Four WILL Shock You!  05:07, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * honestly at this point I don't think GG has any actual supporters who are supporting it on its supposed 'merits'. either they're doing it ironically (and ironic bigotry is still bigotry), they are trying to goad Quinn, Wu, or Sarkeesian to suicide, or they're dog-whistling ('virtue-signaling'?) to the alt-right and other internet shitlords, likely to try to make money off of it. of course, that's been true since uhhhhhhhhh the day after GG became a thing. why is this bon besmirching the title of bon that's my job24.120.253.250 (talk) 05:17, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe the reason all the reasonable GGers left is because people like you fucking harassed them at the request of Zoe Quinn? Oh no they're the harassers right. That's why Polygon dregged up 6 month old bs to slander Jeremy. Which really started the whole thing. Nice circle jerk though Commie and Pasta.50.86.55.151 (talk) 12:32, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I would recommend people watch these videos. If you still think Jeremy is the bad guy you're fucking delusion or on these website's payroll:
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9W-R43yzzWw
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUUyk-jmbOc
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ByW6UA2F1NM&t=105s108.208.14.123 (talk) 12:44, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh GG Bonny BoNs, your shill gambits are so cute. I'm either being payed by a non-profit website run purely by volunteers or I'm skeptical of someone based not on my experience on the internet but instead at the bequest of either the victims of GG or a news site that I rarely visit. Keep up those baseless accusations though, I've almost hit BINGO. Changing someone's mind isn't the main point. Tribalism thrives in an environment where each baseless accusation cannot be corrected. To put it another way, half the reason political discourse (at least in the U.S.) is so bad is because most people have tried to avoid talking about it, meaning they haven't tried to explain their point of view, meaning that the ideological schisms have only deepened as a result. I know this because of how the discourse around the other major social taboo subject, religion, has evolved over time.  13:35, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * {ping|GrammarCommie} In all honesty, the only way I can see bothering to debate someone who won't listen to you is in hopes that the audience might listen to what you say with less bias and come away having learned something, be it the truth of your points, that your opponent is an ass, or both. But I do get what you're saying about the need to debate and oppose the other side.  I know from personal experience, actually. Throughout all of middle and high school, I was classmates with this one guy who was, no exaggeration, the worst person I had ever met. Hyper-conservative, religious fundamentalist, you name it.  Worst of all, he was the school's top athlete and scholar, so he had a massive superiority complex. It only got worse once Trump got elected, and he would rabidly and fanatically defend literally every word and action of Trump's, like he was Trump's attack dog or something. And I noticed that each year he grew more and more deranged and unstable, until by 12th grade he would flip out and fly into insane rages over literally anything, and would constantly derail conversations to spew conspiracy theories bashing "The Liberals." Ironic, considering how he would not shut up about how liberals are too easily offended.  Oh, and he seemed to be personally offended by my nut allergies, so he would go out of his way to be consuming nuts of some kind at all times, and to contaminate as much stuff as possible.  And nobody would do anything about it, no matter how many times I tried to point out that this was literally attempts to hurt me, because he's the administration's pet.  Anyways, my point is that in twelfth grade, I took a class called Global Issues, where we essentially just debated politics too.  And he was in that class too.  So I had the lovely opportunity to listen to him spout off the craziest, most hateful garbage you can imagine. ("I'm a moral relativist, so we have to accept that the Europeans are perfectly okay with the totalitarian fascist politically correct dictatorships in Europe taking away all their freedom.") And finally, I got to debate him, oppose every last talking point and propaganda piece he regurgigated.  Sure, no matter how logical and well-supported I made my points, he would either go even more nuclear in his blind ranting rage, or completely ignore everything I just said, and repeat his original point, regardless of the fact that I just refuted it.  I knew I couldn't change his mind, but I just had to stand up to him and his insanity and hatred and bigotry and complete wrongness. So, I guess I do completely agree with what you said after all. Just remember that you need to decide at what point you throw in the towel.  (Also, yay, first time insulted by a troll here!  Milestone!)   You Won't BELIEVE What Astronomers Found In This Neutron Star!  - Number Four WILL Shock You!  15:54, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Gamergate had no redeeming qualities
Please fuck off. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:11, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I find Stoicism to be contradictory
Never mind their iffy definitions of "nature" (even though everything could fit under that), but how do you build an ethics philosophy based on not being moved by external factors? If external things are not good or bad, then how can they argue for justice or what ought to be then? I read a few accounts about how stoics endured great punishment, even Seneca did not phase when faced with death. But does that really prove it's success? I mean it still doesn't address all the holes in it.Machina (talk) 17:30, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I feel stoics would argue that what "ought" to be can only be described in terms of the self. You can describe what you ought to be doing, but not what the state of the universe should be at any future point.  And that this argument is a perception you arrive at by feeding stoicism through the assumptions of consequentialism, which they reject.
 * I.e. instead of saying "one ought to be kind to others because it makes the world a better place" a stoic might say "one ought to be kind to others because it is one of the limited ways you can react to the world with virtuous character" and virtuous character is good because... reasons? The importance of individual virtue in stoicism is almost a first principle.  As to what it proves?  I think their thought is that a life well lived is its own reward; it doesn't need to be anything else.
 * I'm not a stoic though, I'm an absurdist and still stuck between consequentialism and deontology-lite. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:43, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It beats living in a jar and barking at people Cardinal Chang (talk) 18:39, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You've not lived until you've thrown a plucked chicken into a classroom. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:42, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I will be voting Democrat for awhile
I have been a registered voter for about 7 years. Not very long. I have been Republican for only 3 years and I am already disillusioned with the Republican party. I will mark this as one of the biggest mistakes of my life. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:31, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * If you don't trust the Republican party, then for you the logical thing to do is not voting Republican; it isn't voting Democrat. Thinker(unlicensed) 18:58, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm being a pedant but "Disillusioned" is the word you were looking for. "Disenfranchised" would mean you're not voting for anyone at all.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:10, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * even more specifically that you cannot vote for anyone. legal bars and such like. not an inconceivable position to be in, in your neck of the woods i hear AMassiveGay (talk) 21:23, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Besides Donald Trump, even the governor of Michigan has let me down. Either way, I am voting Democrat next election. Sounds strange coming from me. I think Donald Trump needs my psychiatric meds more than I do. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 22:10, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Meat processing
[snark]I feel like butchering someone. Any volunteers?[end snark] Ɖøn Ĵuan (talk) 23:53, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * If only there were some way to make magic meatballs out of human meat... Don Juan&#39;s Magic Meatball (talk) 00:45, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Crowd Butchering! --Annanoon (talk) 09:35, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

What about how they say the mind is pictures?

Parachute woo
I wasn't sure if this fitted in any WIGO categories, but the BMJ has just published a randomised controlled trial into the efficacy of parachute use when jumping from an aircraft, which found "Parachute use did not reduce death or major traumatic injury". Reading the methodology, the conclusion looks absolutely correct. What kind of fallacy or junk science is it an example of? --Annanoon (talk) 14:39, 14 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Er, this is dumb. "the trial was only able to enroll participants on small stationary aircraft on the ground, suggesting cautious extrapolation to high altitude jumps.". 15:26, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

"Conclusion: Parachute use compared with a backpack control did not reduce death or major traumatic injury when used by participants jumping from aircraft in this first randomized evaluation of the intervention. This largely resulted from our ability to only recruit participants jumping from stationary aircraft on the ground. When beliefs regarding the effectiveness of an intervention exist in the community, randomized trials evaluating their effectiveness could selectively enroll individuals with a lower likelihood of benefit, thereby diminishing the applicability of trial results to routine practice. Therefore, although we can confidently recommend that individuals jumping from small stationary aircraft on the ground do not require parachutes, individual judgment should be exercised when applying these findings at higher altitudes."

- Idiot BMJ study authors

WTF. Why did they even do this study! 15:32, 14 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I have thought about it, and I think this falls under Ignoratio elenchi. 15:50, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Guys
It's a parody of bad clinical study design. The citations are full of real randomized clinical trials with the same problems. They're mocking them. "We know the risk factors of our participants don't match those of the clinical use case however... we find that the measured technique is not effective" like this one where they took a pool of postmenopausal women for their trial to test the safety dimensions of HRT, which is usually only prescribed to women with severe symptoms. Flipping out about this is on par with reading this and flipping out about people donating blood in their cupped hands. Come on. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:05, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, in an inversion of internet standard operating procedure do read the comments. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:09, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's not stupid, it's Ignobel! Bongolian (talk) 18:48, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It admittedly did seem to be over the top dumbwittery to publish a study like this in the BMJ, the fact it is an intentional effect is a relief. 18:56, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hooooooooooooooly moly how did we not see that this was a satirical article from the very start. Common sense would tell you that paratroopers would not be part of the military if parachutes did not work and the abstract notes that the test happened on a small, stationary aircraft on the ground. Did no one even attempt to read the abstract? Did anyone even take a precursory look at the data they collected? For those who haven't read the article, one of the metrics they measured was frequent flyer status. The fact that so many things in the article are clearly satirical but only ikanreed picked up on it at first glance is a little concerning. 22:51, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Something of interest
https://amp.space.com/42735-hot-neptune-exoplanets-evaporate-super-earths.html

Alien Neptune being murdered by it's parent star! --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 19:17, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * "Hot neptune" feels like a bullshit term. "Hot jupiter" doesn't really refer to jovian sized objections.  Just gas giants in close orbits.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:26, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello, hello.
Hi guys; thought I'd pop in and see how the old place is doing. I just got this mashup of religion and alt-med woo in my inbox : The Tabula Vita. (I've linked to the transcript rather than the annoying video.) Genghis Khant (talk) 22:58, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Another Great Old One emerges! Good to see you. :) -- MtD Bogan   23:02, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Seems something has jolted the Great Khan from his 800-year slumber. Good to see another face from when I first joined this unholy abomination of a wiki, I mean, great and glorious community. Ɖøn Ĵuan (talk) 23:05, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Genghis! good to see you. Trust you're OK. Scream!! (talk) 00:00, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Thoughts on Mumkey Jones?
I am curious to hear if anyone here is familiar with the content of Mumkey Jones, a youtube personality with a rather sarcastic sense of humour. While he does come across at times as a bit of a tryhard with his offensive humour, I find his series of videos on Elliot Rodger to be remarkably fascinating and well worth a watch. Does anyone else have their own thoughts on the matter? Wiseassmathematician (talk) 04:08, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Indifference, given that his account appears to have been suspended. 04:12, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Shit, I didn’t even notice. Haven’t checked his channel in a while. That certainly sucks, I liked his content and hope he can get his channel back.Wiseassmathematician (talk) 04:16, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I should correct my earlier post, the account in question has not been suspended, that would imply that it could return. It has been terminated. 04:18, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I’m pretty sure there’s a way to appeal a termination (however fleeting it may be since even Mumkey himself has demonstrated that Youtube’s appeal system is clearly very poorly run) so I wouldn’t lose hope yet. That’s still pretty shitty regardless. Wiseassmathematician (talk) 04:32, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * This is his account now. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 05:06, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Twitter is dumb, I know
But this is a hell of an excerpt from an email.

Phew boy. Click through and find that that's not even the most stupidly incriminating thing he wrote down. I'm genuinely curious if can nobs this one to actually be about the Clintons. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:04, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'd have to brush up on the particulars of this case. Erickson, I think, is/was Butina's American boyfriend (No?} a bit player and a real nutcase. IOWs, low hanging fruit for the FBI. John Bolton is the real target here of another politically motivated witchhunt by Democrat FBI deep state operatives, cause the video Bolton made was for the Russian organization Butina either founded or was a high level director. The GOP has some exposure here, too, because of its relations with the NRA. But Trump and the Trump campaign are in the clear.


 * On the whole, the NRA & Bolton are targets of a politically motivated witchhunt, Butina is a naive 20 something Russian gun rights activist (in Russia) who didn't understand how US politics operate, which thus proves her lack of KGB training, and Erickson is a certifiable nutcase, as I recall. nobspiss in my ear 07:22, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

IOWs, this case can't be understood without some understanding of Russisn domestic politics. Anti-communists in Russia have been pushing for an American-style 2nd Amendment (a cause Putin and others around him may be sympathetic to, as I recall). The idea of an armed populace is very attractive to Russians who suffered under communism. Butina became involved in the American-modeled "Right To Bear Arms" movement at the age of 24 and came to the US to learn how the 2nd Amendment operates. She got hooked up with some low-level Republican door knocker and gun enthusiast in South Dakota ("longtime GOP operative"). The Russian funded anti-Communist Right to Bear Arms movement, after Sandy Hook & Fast and Furious, put her in direct opposition to the globalist anti-gun movement.

So now American Communists have to answer the question: Is Putin a pro-gun anti-communist who sent Butina here to spy, or is Butina trying to organize an armed uprising against the Putin regime? One or the other. No other explanation.

It's not surprising American Communists have chosen the anti-freedom position that Butina is a spy, and globalists should disarm both the Russian and American populations. nobspiss in my ear 08:01, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Putin is a communist, and the FSB are recruiting for capitalist overthrow, is a hot one. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:56, 13 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I think, to be honest, this is extremely tame and not at all that crazy for twitter (though it is certainly nuts). I do social media work for some of my clients in Spanish and occasionally in English and having to do the twitter stuff makes my shoulders cringe. Things are bad enough on the Spanish twitter-sphere, that is the rank nasty mouth-trash replies people give...but the worst is in the Anglo-Saxon twitter-sphere, were sometimes I actually have to contact the police for things people say. My favourite example was the release of a new car for sale in South-West Europe and god forbid that this time, it wasn't a smoking hot woman laying on the car like it was a sexy bed, but instead a famous sportsman leaning against his cool new vehicle. There were many horrid replies, the worst reply was: "Oh look the pussymobile, SJW betas trying to woman-us-up. I know [name of president of company]'s children go to [name of school they go to]. I'm going to rape them and set them on fire and upload the video to YouTube." I deleted my own private twitter account after this and I found a way to outsource most of the "dealing with replies" work. I think most people would fall into a deep depression if they had to deal with the darkest scummiest and even dangerous web-garbage every day. Shabi  DOO  17:56, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I meant citing twitter for anything is dumb, this user just excerpted the money shot of the article so I used their tweet instead of the article. This particular tweet is fine, it's the broader existence of twitter that sucks.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:59, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * What is the relationship between 'twit' and 'twitter'? Anna Livia (talk) 13:40, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Pushback
Why is this wiki so hated? Everyone thinks we're just a bunch of atheists and liberals in an echo chamber? Tabula Rasa (talk) 05:27, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It's hated by various groups for various reasons: alt-right shitheads hate us because we treat racism as hateful bullshit instead of science. Creationist and evangelical hate us for the reasons you gave.  Woo practitioners hate us for saying that they stuff the peddle doesn't work and gets people killed.  Broadly, we don't have an open mind about unrepentant bullshit.  People deeply attached to bullshit will never not hate us.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 05:46, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Isn't that the conservative stereotype of every generally left-leaning space? "An echo chamber of SJWs/libtards/unbelievers/America-haters/what have you patting each other on the back?" The fact that they deploy that exact same stereotype for every community they come across that's not conservative enough for them says more about them than it does us. You Won't BELIEVE What Astronomers Found In This Neutron Star!  - Number Four WILL Shock You!  05:51, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree, whoever wrote that I thought this was supposed to be RATIONAL wiki essay is a life saver. Doublethink (talk) 06:05, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I find this true of just about all online political discussions. Just about everybody repeats canned lines, standard talking points, and in-group jargon.  Being somewhat hard to place politically, I notice it from everybody. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 20:22, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

You spin me right round, baby, like a record, baby, right round round round....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZKf8tXz5EM Ɖøn Ĵuan (talk) 23:28, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, yes. Interesting. Wiseassmathematician (talk) 04:11, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You spin me right round baby right round like a record baby right round round round you You spin me right round baby right round like a record baby right round round round you You spin me right round baby right round like a record baby right round round round you You spin me right round baby right round like a record baby right round round round you You spin me right round baby right round like a record baby right round round round you.... okay that's enough. Ɖøn Ĵuan (talk) 09:52, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

compelled speech
after an argument previously here, i have a query. are there any cases of people fired for deviating or just not using one of those scripts you sometimes get made to use in customer service positions, i assume they must have at some point, and did anyone make some claim about freespeech when they did? AMassiveGay (talk) 02:33, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It seems you are trying to build a strawman like: "I can say/refuse to say everything I want while doing my job... because freedom of speech". Thinker(unlicensed) 10:14, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Why are you such a prick?
 * heaven forbid i should attempt to broaden my understanding of something. heaven forbid i should not want have to rely on witless assertions and inane hypotheticals. heaven forbid i should want to strengthen my argument or maybe, gasp, amend my position. heaven forbid you should be expected to explain why it would be a strawman.
 * i cannot pretend any case i make on anything is cast iron or even very good. they likely are not. but every dealing i have had with we you results with me bending over backwards to explain and clarify points that you either ignore entirely or wilfully misunderstand, repeatedly stating the same bullshit points and zero attempts to show your reasoning. to such a great extent that i am literally questioning my sanity - that is not hyperbole.
 * but you know what? i don not think its me. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:02, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * LOL are people still talking to the concern-troll? Shabi  DOO  17:51, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * There was a local bookstore, think it was Books a Million. Dude there simply would not shut up about their paid loyalty card program.  I told him firmly that I understood how they worked and that I was absolutely not interested.  He kept trying to upsell me this thing, over and over again.  Got to the point where I asked him if he understood English.  Have not been back to that bookstore since that experience. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 20:18, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * "to such a great extent that i am literally questioning my sanity - that is not hyperbole. but you know what? i don not think its me." If you really get so much discomfort from our conversations then you have some kind of problem. Thinker(unlicensed) 21:01, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Too the original point – no, I don't know of any cases of people fired for deviating or not using a script in customer service. Employers understand that each customer service case is variable and that a script often feels canned and so needs to be amended in the moment so that the customer service worker doesn't feel like a robot, you know? A friend of mine who works at a call centre takes calls all day for people who have questions and there is no 'correct' way to talk to them (like following a script) because each person is different. Some people he talks to asks how his day is going so he responds and asks them back. Some calls he ends with "Have a great day!" and some with "Hope the rest of your day goes well!" As far as this goes no employer would fire him for that. If, however, he were to start swearing or insulting the customer, it is perfectly legal for the employer to fire him (and I'm certain that he would get fired). He can claim freedom of speech all he wants, but that won't hold up in a court of law; in fact, the employer might respond that the use of his right to freedom of speech is what got him fired! But this is different than compelled speech for at least one reason that I can think of off the top of my head: the employer has prohibited the use of insults when talking to customers (for whatever reason, ie. it might reflect badly on the company, it might lose the company's customers, etc). My friend hasn't gotten fired because he failed to say something he was compelled to. He got fired because he said something he was prohibited to say. And this, I would think, extends to all cases like these. Even if an employer could fire someone for not saying something they were compelled to, he'd have to write the job's contract such that not saying things that the contract says to is a valid reason for termination. In which case, the employee is fired on the grounds of breaking the contract.


 * Back to the school case (which is where I think this thread probably popped up from), I don't think the school put it in the teacher's contract the bit about calling students by their preferred pronouns. If it was in the contract for the job as an offense that could result in termination, then yeah, the school is well within their rights to fire Vlaming for not complying with the terms that he, willingly, agreed to. But this doesn't seem to be the case and it also doesn't seem to be the case that the school updating pronoun policy resulted in a renegotiation of job contracts in such a way that would make this offense punishable by termination. 21:53, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * i dont want rehash the school thing, i wrote plenty and it was mostly ignored, but yeh it was spurred by that but not especially relevant to my argument.
 * im not so sure of your assessment here though. contracts, at least in my experience, need not be anywhere as near specific as you describe. 'maintain acceptable standards', or 'adhere to company policy' - general catch all statements. the details of would probably in an employee hand book, not even that sometimes. if you can be reasonable expected to know and meet these things it wont help in a tribunal. and it wont help you if are asked or made aware of something, to do something different, then continually doing it regardless. or just flat out refuse like the teacher did in the school case. where can you go from there? contract re negotiations not are required minor adjustments to working arrangements - there would never be a valid contract if it were. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:07, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * the contract things kinda irrelevent to the school case anyway. poorly worded contracts dont really add or detract from whether his actions where correct in a moral sense or with this compelled speech thing. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:18, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * besides to me (a nonbinary person, yes we exist), intentional repeated misgendering of a trans student easily counts as the prohibited the use of insults bullshit. this whole 'compelled speech' thing sounds a lot like white people trying to find Literally Any situation where they can say the N word. also, I work as relay operator for a company under contract from the FCC. we speak verbatim what the people our users are calling speak. that is literally compelled speech by a federal agency (the FCC) under the functional equivalence portion of a federal law (the ADA). so fuck that argument. if I can parrot white supremacist talking points, pseudoscience woo, MRA bullshit, and generally unpleasant people for a government contractor, vlambing can fucking say the fucking pronouns24.120.253.250 (talk) 23:42, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * what i find annoying about this and other such cases is that it is never about free speech, never about compelled speech (a term i was not familiar until the other day, hence this thread). it never is. its an excuse shitted out by bigots of all descriptions that gets parroted by folk with the old 'i dont agree with you say but i'll defend to the death your right to say it'. its tired and lazy and ignores what you should be asking is that even if you can say something awful (and you probably can), should you though? as if you even need to get of rid of free speech to silence people. look around you. your president labels any news he doesn't like as fake news and enemies of the people, and everyone else is screaming at each other drowning out everything else. you've got free speech. thats not the problem AMassiveGay (talk) 00:10, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Inquiry
If someone were to pay you $1,000,000 in exchange for being kicked in the balls; would you go through with it? (Note: This question, while of the upmost importance, is only applicable to males due to the sad reality of the nature of the development of the genitalia in the two sexes, not genders, of mankind.) Ɖøn Ĵuan (talk) 00:13, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * whose doing the kicking and how hard? i can deal with pain for that cash, less keen on a ruptured testicle AMassiveGay (talk) 00:32, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Please, I live in America, even the most basic hospital bill could ruin me, millionaire or no. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 01:13, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Probably. Maybe I would get lucky and only have swelling. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 04:08, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I paid money to have my balls torn out so probably if I still had them 24.120.253.250 (talk) 05:53, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * @BoN Are you willing to have your balls shoved back in? Ɖøn Ĵuan (talk) 08:26, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * oh probably. only reason I had them removed was because my hormone levels wouldn't stabilize on medication, so I could just go back on spironolactone in the mean time. they'll get taken out again anyway when I turn that bilateral orchiectomy into full genital reassignment surgery, and the million would easily cover it (the estimate I see thrown around trans twitter is $37,210) 24.120.253.250 (talk) 03:50, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I got kicked in the balls in the past (an aggression) and nobody paid me, so just give me straight the one million dollars! Being serious, as a general rule, I would never accept money for doing something like that. It seems to me that who proposes such kind of agreements: has a sadistic nature, so he is willing to voluntary harm; and has a will to create a sort of "deniability", like "if he was injured it's not my fault, he got paid!" (which, by the way, wouldn't work in court). So, no way. On the other hand, there are many people who will pay to get tortured, so I think there's a plenty of demand without the need of one million dollars incentives. Thinker(unlicensed) 08:36, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Follow up
Who would sell their balls for $500,000 each? option on selling one or both... 16:48, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I mean it costs $2000-8000 without insurance depending on area and provider, at least in the USA, to have bilateral orchiectomy. It comes with the following caveats:
 * 1) You are rendered permanently sterile. Not a problem if you want biological children, but can be a problem if you do.
 * 2) It immediately drops your body's testosterone levels to near-null (the prostate gland still provides a small drip). This heavily affects body structure over a period of time, making your skin somewhat less oily, muscle mass atrophy, and fat redistribution. It also affects your sex drive and ability to get off, penile hardness and length, etc. Hormone levels can also give you gender dysphoria (if you're a cis man), which you might not recognize as much more than a haze of depression and not feeling like yourself. This can be a boon if you're a trans woman or some distro of nonbinary, though, as the effects of testosterone may be considered undesirable and you may already be on hormone replacement therapy already (involving testosterone blockers like spironolactone, finasteride, and cyprosterone, along with estrodial, estrace, progesterone, etc.) However, the sex drive effects should still be considered if your dysphoria isn't strictly based on your genital configuration.
 * 3) Testosterone hormone replacement therapy is somewhat pricey without insurance (cost varies based on region but can be ~$100/mo). This means that the earnings are slightly misleading, unless you're a trans woman or nonbinary person on HRT already.
 * As I've said before, I've paid for the privilege (I'm nonbinary), so I'd take the cash in a heartbeat. I can't judge others' decisions though.24.120.253.250 (talk) 22:52, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Fuck no, what a terrible idea, I want children, not to be castrated. Ɖøn Ĵuan (talk) 11:07, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

The mind is pictures?
https://browardmeditation.org/what-is-meditation/overview/

I know I post stuff like this too much, but it just bugs me. I am not well versed in philosophy and when I tried to study it lets just say disaster followed.Machina (talk) 03:38, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I mean this one here is just woowoo nonsense. There's nothing to be gleaned from pseudo-profound bullshit.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 05:48, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * One word for meditation: Platonism. 20:33, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Cats
One of my cats is in heat, and it's fucking unbearable, both for me and (presumably) the cat. I suffer from insomnia so she woke me up at midnight tonight after getting only three hours of sleep. Need advice please. Ɖøn Ĵuan (talk) 11:57, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Get her speyed - but it ain't cheap: google is your friend -Scream!! (talk) 16:04, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Bob Barker wasn't playin. If you took it in from the street, don't ever expect that mama-overdrive to go away, but it can be mitigated.  Seems cruel, but you already keep it as a pet, no? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:19, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I got her as a pet, not it. Correction aside, yes, I got her off the street, so I guess it's never really going away. Ɖøn Ĵuan (talk) 08:47, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * There's medication to end up with it, even if it takes its time to work. In addition to that, very old cats have no longer heat, assumng she lives so long. Panzerfaust (talk) 14:50, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Theresa May
Looks like the bid to oust her is in full force. A no-confidence vote has been triggered and Tory MPs will vote this evening, with the results expected at 21:00 GMT. --RWRW (talk) 12:19, 12 December 2018 (UTC)


 * This is "Strong and Stable" tory governance in action, being held in contempt of Parliament, cancelling a key vote minutes after a press conference saying it was going ahead, literal incompetence all round... Now, who next as PM; Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage, or Humpty Dumpty? 14:49, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Nigel or Boris. I'd rather watch the people who forged Brexit have to actually deal with it. RoninMacbeth (talk) 15:03, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * My guess is May will win the confidence vote narrowly but it will be on borrowed time, like Thatcher in 1990. Personally I hope she does get ousted tonight. My first choice would be David Davis for leader, I have always respected him and see him as one of the few MPs with a degree of integrity. I wouldn't object to Boris becoming leader, I know he's a buffoon but he stands a good chance of beating Corbyn in the next election (which will most likely be called next year). It needs to be a brexiteer who takes over, we've tried letting a remainer lead the negotiations and it clearly hasn't gone well--RWRW (talk) 15:16, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * David Davis is okay, although it more likely to be Boris because he is already a top ranking Conservative, whereas David is still a bit newsish and may not have the support, and Nigel is still pretending to be retired while watching his old party burning out. David would need to convince the party to back him, and explain why he is better than the former London Mayor and foreign secretary Boris the Brave.  15:22, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Davis entered parliament 14 years before Johnson, and has served in a variety of senior roles so I don't see he's much less qualified than Johnson. Whatever their other differences, both men have a reputation for being lazy and having little interest in detail, so either would be ideal for the job. It comes down to whether you want an idiot (Davis) or a serial liar and cheat (Johnson). --Annanoon (talk) 16:31, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * @Annanoon I don't agree that Davis is an idiot. It is well known that he was heavily sidelined by May during the negotiations, and that was one of the reasons he resigned. The Independent isn't a great reference - it is essentially a Liberal Democrat propaganda machine and it enjoys making (often inaccurate) hit pieces on Conservatives. --RWRW (talk) 17:03, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It is amazing how profoundly british politics reformed around "there is a gunshot wound in our foot we need to stop the bleeding, should we try to bandage it?" But a majority of the country still supports the holding a gun pointed at their own feet party.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:52, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not normally like this. Generally the three parties (now really two) would be able to swing public opinion against the other parties, but Brexit is such an unusual issue that it is almost non-partisan, all the parties are split in two internally and therefore the political battle is literally happening in inside the ruling party itself.
 * So we have Boris (a leaver) and Mrs May (a remainer), and Davis (a leaver), all fighting over the Tory party. Then in Labour we have Jeremy Corbyn (a remainer) and others who are on both sides. The important issue is that the leaders of both main parties are on the same side of the debate, making the political battle complete bollocks. 19:19, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Just for my own edification, I thought corbyn was a leaver, but didn't actually care about the issue the way it was presented by UKIPy types, not a remainer per se. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:59, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * He campaigned for remain but he is a lifelong eurosceptic and (I suspect) secretly wanted leave to win. —RWRW (talk) 20:16, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It doesn't help that it is't clear where he stands. 20:46, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * So the Brits are in worse shape than we Yanks are? Pigs do fly... From the perspective of a UK citizen. Ɖøn Ĵuan (talk) 22:19, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * he didnt campaign for remain, he went on holiday. you'd think with the worst tory government in living memory, labour would be crushing it in the polls. its as if vagueness and ineffectiveness arent things thats get folk excited. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:29, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It usually does, but in trying times such as these people want decisive action, not incompetence. Ɖøn Ĵuan (talk) 22:37, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Results are in....
May survives with 200 votes - 117 votes. That said, she will be significantly weakened and will have a massive task getting her revised Brexit bill through parliament. —RWRW (talk) 21:07, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Anyone care to inform the uneducated Ugly American on just why exactly May is a bad PM? Ɖøn Ĵuan (talk) 22:20, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * @rwrw it makes no difference at all. no seats have changed hands. its all the same people who need convincing and opposition to her bill is based on the fantasy that a 'good' deal is possible. there is no deal that ends with us ahead in anyway. the uk will not exist for too much longer. scotland is going to go at the first opportunity. as the economy dies, government services, the nhs, die, we will have to reposition as tax haven singapore style, deregulation of services and rights across the board. this is exactly what the brexiters want. they havent exactly hidden their loathing of all that we hold dear. it was just the eu stopping them from really shitting all over us. bravo brexit.
 * @don juan - because people think there is something that can be gained from brexit. there is not. see above AMassiveGay (talk) 22:29, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Well obviously the botched job that was the Brexit deal isn't going to help her popularity. See how Gibraltar feels about the potential for "joint sovereignty" over them shared between Spain and the UK. Ɖøn Ĵuan (talk) 22:36, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * the point is its not botched. the point is there is no good deal. there is literally no good deal that could be good. everything else is a fantasy. everyone one who resigned over it did so because they are jockeying for position. these are people for who the worst fears of what brexit will be is their dream. look that prick dominic raab. the brexitist of brexiters. he hates the nhs. he hates the poor. he hates council house. he loves workhouses. hates all regulation that protect workers. he has nothing but contempt for the british people and is enamoured with a bizarre fantasy of the US - all the flaws seem be strengths to him. brexit is going to make all his dreams come true. hes not alone either. look at michael gove. he is more weasel than man. hates the nhs, loves hanging. or boris - his affable buffoonary almost makes his racism palatable. lacking entirely in substance, entirely self serving. and jacob rees-moog. a man who took his nanny to oxford with him. surely he has the common mans interests at heart. sadly his peudo-victorian image  masks his actual victorian opinions. hangings and food banks are just dandy for jacob. the least egregious of this bunch cunts is david davis and he sure hates the gays having any rights. why the fuck did we listen to these people in the first place, let alone why are we still listening them. if you voted brexit, if you still think brexit is a good idea, these are the people who will be fucking you. bend over and lube upAMassiveGay (talk) 00:12, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I`m starting to think that whole referendum was a bad idea in the first place. Ɖøn Ĵuan (talk) 00:15, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * oh, and boris johnson almost knocked me over on his bike, the grinning gobshite AMassiveGay (talk) 00:51, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Love the stream of consciousness narrative^^^above. Spoken right from the heart. Clear as a bell. nobspiss in my ear 08:47, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Gee, it's almost as if you have nothing intelligent to contribute. What a surprise. Ɖøn Ĵuan (talk) 08:58, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Jus' sayin', I learned more about British politics and the personslities involved over the past three years from that rant than from the BBC or any other fake news source. nobspiss in my ear 10:24, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * With all of the political chaos here in America you'd think we'd have it bad, but the Brits are worse off than us Yanks. Every country's got its own problems, I guess. Ɖøn Ĵuan (talk) 10:48, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * i cant tell with you nobs if thats genuine praise from or you are taking the piss. in either case, it was a rant, but everything is factually true. that are their stated opinions and i left so so so much out AMassiveGay (talk) 21:11, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No no, that's genuine news from a highly respected and credible source. I'd even quote you on it with anonymity if you wanted. nobspiss in my ear 02:58, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Headless Chicken Mode
I was reading this page and it makes numerous references to a "kip the dip incident" what happened there and on "events of May 2011"? Doublethink (talk) 05:06, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Kip the Dip was a writer at uncyclopedia who wrote a handful of pretty good articles...all before uncyc. forked into two sites and both fizzled out. A timely article of his was on charlie brown. Last week he wrote a news article on Republican stimulus package. The website is mostly bust now but a few keep writing a little. It was once an unequalled awesome writing community. Much of the articles are crap but there were lots of utter gems of helarity. Kip was banned from uncyclopedia for a stupid reason I don't even remember. He slightly brought that drama to rationalwiki, and then got unbanned on uncyclopedia and didn't show up here much after that. Think of it as transplanted drama that came and was gone in a blink. You must have missed this link, explains it a bit.  Shabi  DOO  18:41, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that clears somethings up. Tabula Rasa (talk) 20:36, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Little people inside my head (not some sort of joke) and I need advice
I know it is not real but it feels almost physical. I know my psychiatric symptoms flare up at this time of year and back in 2015, I spent Christmas in a hospital psychiatric unit. Stress induced? --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 04:13, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Possibly. How busy are things around your place? 04:18, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I have been taking ministry courses online and I do get frustrated. Not the course materials itself but some of it is difficult. Then there is running my YouTube channel. I make Emergency Alert System scenarios and only using a tablet computer is tough; all I have though. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 04:25, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , I hope you're seeking professional mental health care rather than just relying on the Saloon Bar. Bongolian (talk) 04:29, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, here's the holistic approach if you wanna avoid medication: Call a committee meeting of the voices in your head and get yourself elected Chairman with veto powers over decisions of the Board. nobspiss in my ear 07:03, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * So you're deciding to be an ass again for no reason? Dull surprise. Ɖøn Ĵuan (talk) 08:23, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Try reducing your workload where you can. Stress can be a factor in behavior such as anxiety, depression, and rage. And if you feel like you're still getting worse, seek professional help. That's not how Schizo-disorders work, most of the time the person suffering from them as little to no control over the voices, and at best can try to ignore them, though that rarely works without medication and psychiatric help.  13:27, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * This is where leadership is involved. Bang the gavel hard enough to get the voices attention. If a voice is being uncooperative, get yourself appointed Sargent-at-Arms and throw them out. The rest of the voices can be bought off with bribes, like an occasional Ben and Jerry's or peep show or sumpthin'. nobspiss in my ear 03:08, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Seriously, what I'm saying is negotiation and dialogue. It's your body and your head so you should be in control. You gotta make them respect that. You decide when to open a negotiation or dialogue, and when to shut it down. If they won't vacate, then you need outside help like pills, an exorcist, or a guillotine. But like taking control of the Board, that's all ultimately your decision. nobspiss in my ear 03:19, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I have been on meds for about 9 years. I do go to a psychiatrist. Sometimes things can get tough. You actually made my morning. I got a laugh. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:00, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * This may be too invasive and person, but one of those things I wonder about is the boundary between hallucination, delusion, and illusion. When you talk about these little people, are they people you perceive with your senses that you know to be a figment, but still can't help but perceive.  Or are they things you intuitively "know" are there, but have less sensory clarity about the visual/auditory/touch of them is vague.  Or are they both perceived and "real" and rational interrogation of facts about them is the only way you can determine their falsehood?  What's the experience actually like?  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:30, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

The best way I can put it is, I can't see them but I feel them. When they move around I claw at my skull. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:01, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * But you instinctively "know" they're people? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:03, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:26, 13 December 2018 (UTC)


 * It is always best to consult with your physician if you have doubts about your condition. Some time ago my wife reported seeing people who weren't really there. Dead people mostly. My advise to her was simple: your mind, in the variety of its manifestations, is producing random visual representations or, waking dreams. There is no problem with that as long as you realize what they are. So, if the people in your head are just background effects unrelated to your actual thoughts, you could just ignore them as irrelevant sensory data without any problems. If it is the anxiety about this experience that upsets you, that is something you could control. You should talk to your doctor in any case if it is unusual to have the experience you describe..Ariel31459 (talk) 18:48, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Article idea
Do an article on David Duke's alma mater- Interregional Academy of Personnel Management aka "University of Hate". Not sure if I would be brave enough to view their website. I can muddle through creationism and flat Earth BS, neo Nazi websites are a different league. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 20:00, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It might be OK as an article as it's been embroiled in antisemitic controversy. Look who else is an alumni though: Bongolian (talk) 18:40, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That's why we have the To do list. It's linked in Recent Changes header.Scream!! (talk) 07:04, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I got fooled by woo(the shame)
Our puppy was having joint pain. Limping for no reasons, occasionally. We took him to the vet. The vet recommended a product called "Dasuquin". A joint supplement. The word "supplement" should have set off alarm bells, but hey, it was a medical professional recommending it. We bought it for months. Then, yesterday, I wanted to read up on the active ingredients; I was curious about their role, but then I found the metaanalysis of available clinical trials. Fucking no different than placebo in dogs suffering joint pain. No difference to placebo. No difference to placebo. There was no reason for our vet to sell us this stuff. I still am wary of disregarding my vet's advice, even after I read the state of medicine, because I'm not an expert. But fuck alt-med bullshit creeps in everywhere. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:46, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * We've all had our moments. I was very briefly cool with the idea of Ron Paul back in 2008. Though I wasn't a hardcore Paulbot and I never intended to vote for him anyway (thankfully!). I lost what little interest I had in him after the elections and only found out about his nuttery and awful racism years later. Towards-the Unknown (talk) 19:46, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Morality disguised as Rationality
It seems to me that quite often individuals who deem themselves as rationalists make the mistake of believing that rationality (reason and evidences) can dictate morality (what is good and what is evil). It also seems to me that there is a silence about this problem in the rational community.

There are of course cases in which rationality can refute moral arguments, because those arguments are based on verifiable statements about the physical world or logic, for example: Also, rationality can supports moral arguments if a specific purpose is given, for example: But, said so, there could be never rational arguments for moral statements like: Thinker(unlicensed) 15:48, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * "Adultery is wrong because the Bible says so and the Bible is perfect." (The Bible contains a lot of claims about the physical world that are false, and a lot of logical contradictions, so rationality can refute such moral statement.)
 * "If you care about reducing contagious diseases, then you should push for vaccinations because they reduce contagion [statistics and medical analysis follows]"
 * "Killing is wrong."
 * "Healthcare should be universal."
 * "Abortion must be prohibited."
 * "The best form of government is ..."
 * Hume would agree, but I think you're full of shit. Positing a reasonable definition of "morality" leads to a giant basket of implications of what is right and wrong.  Don't conflate reason, the ability and willingness to focus critical thought on a question and available evidence and arrive at conclusions, with logic, a formal system for deriving conclusions from assumptions; they aren't the same.  The realm or rational support for moral statements is huge.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:57, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Let's deconstruct these examples. We will do so using the definition of a moral act as increasing happiness well-being and health. An immoral act would be the inverse intent and results.
 * The act of taking a life, any life, when viewed in this childishly simplistic context is amoral. That is to say that morality does not apply.
 * Increasing healthcare increases happiness, well-being, and health (moral), and since we as a society wish to survive and prosper in the best environment possible it is perfectly rational to wish to improve our living conditions.
 * Abortion is a morally complex subject, with multiple mitigating factors. Thus this statement is rather simplistic, due to ignoring those factors.
 * A favored form of governance is subjective, and on its own is amoral.
 * Using these four examples we have proven that one is morally complex, two are amoral, and one is moral. Not only does it seem that your original post was somewhat overgeneralized, but that your examples are poorly framed. Unless of course, you intended to imply that all four examples are moral, i.e. good. 16:20, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * "We will do so using the definition of a moral act as increasing happiness well-being and health." Which is a completely subjective definition and not based on rationality. So all the rest of what you have written go under the "rationality can supports moral arguments if a specific purpose is given", in your case, the specific purpose is "increasing happiness well-being and health." But there's no rational argument about why the specific purpose must be the one you have chosen and not another completely different one. Thinker(unlicensed) 17:01, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * For "Killing is wrong": Most people want to be alive (not be killed). If killing is considered right, people will kill more than if it is considered wrong. More killings means each individual have a higher chance of being killed (i.e. cease to be alive). Therefore killing should be considered wrong to minimize the risk of being killed.
 * I'd change "Killing is wrong" to "Suicide is wrong", can't think of a rational argument for that.189.69.25.167 (talk) 20:41, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Dear BoN, It appears that you, like the author of the original post have conflated "killing" with "murder". Look at your food, is it not in a state known a death? Did killing not need to occur to put your food in that state? This is why I filed killing in general under amoral, rather than immoral in my reply. 23:12, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Empirical morality. Rationality is necessary for morality to even be possible. There are so many possible actions, it is unreasonable to think they could be enumerated or described by a set of rules. We may divide all human actions into two classes, namely, Right and Wrong, and regard the Right actions as those being acceptable to practice, while those in the Wrong class being actions that should be avoided with varying intensity. Individual cultures suggest many of the actions that belong in Wrong. It is usually through experience that one knows for certain that a commonplace action is wrong. Such an action might be an indiscretion, dishonesty, infidelity, violent behavior, etc. Certainly people normally learn from experience that most of the time those actions have bad consequences. We use rationality to determine whether possible actions are analogs of those actions we already recognize as wrong actions. Ariel31459 (talk) 21:08, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * "Rationality is necessary for morality to even be possible." I agree, but my claim is that rationality is not sufficient to morality, not that it is not necessary. So what you are saying is unrelated.
 * "Individual cultures suggest many of the actions that belong in Wrong." Different cultures can have very different classifications of wrong actions (think of homosexuality for example), so that's already a problematic statement...
 * "We use rationality to determine whether possible actions are analogs of those actions we already recognize as wrong actions." Again, I may agree but I never said that rationality cannot be used to support some moral arguments. I said that certain moral statements cannot be justified only by rationality; so I don't see how what you have written is related to the thread. Thinker(unlicensed) 21:37, 17 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I was not clear: Individuals regard Wrong as being actions they would not choose to initiate. We require rationality to recognize actions as wrong by their similarity to those we already have decided, from experience, to be wrong. "Individual cultures suggest many of the actions that belong in Wrong," is a statement of fact, not an assertion of correctness. There is no fixed set of wrong actions that all people would recognize in the empirical theory. Finally, moral statements are routinely justified through rationality. It does not matter much that you and I do not approve of the practice. What else is rationality for?Ariel31459 (talk) 22:00, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * "It does not matter much that you and I do not approve of the practice." So do you agree that certain moral statements cannot be justified by rationality only, but something else is needed (for example, as you mentioned, experience)?
 * The term "justified" is ambiguous. I can't say you are wrong.Ariel31459 (talk) 23:11, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Rationality within a framework
Once you have established the parameters of a moral system (and yes you can use reason to explain why you use that system and how that system meets the goals of society and the individual) then you can definitely use reason to form moral arguments within that system. First lets look at there explanations justifying a moral system:


 * Because a book and a leader says so


 * Because my parents acted like this and they and I turned out well


 * Because my intuition usually results in what seems to me good things for me


 * Because I have studied moral systems now and throughout history and have concluded that respecting the rights of the individuals freedom and beliefs (though in the past just a section of people) brought about a vast growth in knowledge, living conditions and a lot less persecution and pointless suffering.

Obviously at least one of the above is falicious others arent. So yes, just about any formal moral system that emerges from a philosopher(s) uses reason to establish their system. That doesnt mean it is the correct or true or the one and only system but the explanation behind why you propose it would be praiseworthy to use that system...use critical thinking.

Lets adopt the last one (a typical humanist system). Again...no one says that moral system is the true one nor that arguments that come from that system are true..one has just made a case why it should be used. Now that we are inside a humanist moral system you can use reason to deal with moral problems. Please don't assume there are any particular or strange factors or extenuating circumstances to consider):


 * Should poor people living in the street be swept out of the gutter and put on a bus to the next city over?
 * Should Christians be given religious priority when forming civic events?
 * If a politician commits murder or rape should he be free of prosecution?
 * If someone chops my fingers off am I right to then chop his off?
 * Is lying to the police (assume a competent one) to get out of paying a penalty for something you knew was illegal and wrong when you did it acceptable?
 * Is throwing garbage into your neighbours lawn okay?
 * Is teaching Islamic theology and homeopathy in public school okay?
 * Is retributively hitting your children okay?

For most if not all of these reason/critical-thinking can be used to make a good argument. Its no guarantee you'll get a clear answer for all cases but some of these questions are fairly easily answered. Emmerse yourself in a humanist universe and use reason to answer these moral problems. Take this particular set of values of humanism:


 * Respect the dignity of individual
 * The use of reason in gaining and using knowledge
 * Respect for individuals world view without though coersion or church + state
 * Human flourishing
 * Political system that allows public participation and the ability to change governments

How would you answer these problems? Try a utilitarian system. Try virtue ethics. Try deontologicl. machiavellianism. Shabi DOO  16:57, 17 December 2018 (UTC) −
 * I'm not sure exactly what is your point. As I have written, I agree that "rationality can supports moral arguments if a specific purpose is given". In your case, if among the specific purpose there is "Respect the dignity of individual", then rationality can supports moral arguments about, for example, helping poor people. But there is no rational explanation of why "Respect the dignity of individual" should be the one of the purpose of morality. Thinker(unlicensed) 17:09, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * There is none. Next to no philosophers who are not theologians claim their moral system is the true one to use nor that moral arguments that come from them are. You have to state your case and use reason to explain why a system is more praiseworthy that others. Doing everything because an authority tells you to is basically using a fallacy (argument from authority) and cause a demon in the sky will punish me (premise without evidence) every time you make a moral decision (in fact there is no decision just fed rules). Even Machivelianism is more rational than that. Respecting the dignity of the individual because it avoids a lot of pointless suffering is far more rational. But by no means "the answer". Objectivity in moral systems is an illusion and I know of no modern philosophers or humanists who claim otherwise. You can only state your case as rationally you find possible. Shabi  DOO  17:19, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, human 'intuition' does not arise out of nothing. Human moral sentiments arose in an evolutionary context.  They are the basic building blocks of human societies.  This isn't to say that this makes them infallible or even coherent, but it does mean that people know how to form human societies without any guidance or prompting. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 17:25, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * "You have to state your case and ... no decision just fed rules)." OK, I agree with what you have written up to that point. "Machivelianism is more rational than that. Respecting the dignity of the individual because it avoids a lot of pointless suffering is far more rational." But I disagree with "Respecting the dignity of the individual" being more rational than Machivellianism. In my opinion there is no rational justification neither to "Respecting the dignity of the individual" nor to Machivellianism. They are two moral system with different goals, rationality can help to pursue one of those goals once you have chosen which system are you adopting, but none of the goals is more rational than the other. Thinker(unlicensed) 17:40, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you read the "far more" as a comparison with Machiavelianism when it was a comparison with fed-morality. I didn't claim a humanist approach is more rational than machiavelianism. They are both rational and the arguments for the foundation of their moral systems aren't fallacious, or at least not remotely as fallacious as a dictated moral system. I claimed they are both more rational than a spoon-fed system like sharia law or North Korean Yungism or radical biblical morality. I think a humanist approach allows more people to reach the ultimate goal of the principles behind the system, but that's me. I think humanism makes a better case. But I don't believe it's inherently better than Machiavellianism. Though adopting Machiavelianism when you have no power over others nor possibilities for advancement...seems absurd and destructive but...again...no inherent "better" or "more rational". In any case, I personally prefer deontological systems because it adds a barometer of how strong your moral rules are based on how consistently you can apply them...which is very interesting when you put moral judgements to the test. But...again...it's not inherently more rational. If anything, you are encouraged not to use reason if it is in an attempt to justify breaking a law due to "circumstances" or "context" or "excuses" or "but what it something worse came out of it". In that sense, reason is mostly applied to the foundation of the moral system and what follows is more analysis than rationally formed rules. It also tends to invite rules friendly to humanism and human intuition (again...not inherently better though). Shabi  DOO  22:51, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Define your terms
Just a general suggestion. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 00:28, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Found an early case of pseudoscience as direct opposition to medicine
From 1903. It's interesting to see that the BS from a century ago is so similar to the BS today. The differences between, say The Law of Psychic Phenomena(full text) and The Secret is basically zero. And the image of doctors as evil money grubbers hiding good health from you because its how they make money. It's probably been remarked on a million times, but the more things change, the more they stay the same with respect to skepticism. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:38, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Creationism/ID suffers from the same problem. Go back to Ussher, Aquinas, et al and the arguments a virtually identical. Personally I blame the absolute adherence to the core ideology, as well as the fact that there's only so many ways one can argue "nuh uh! My way or the highway!" 21:15, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * all this proves is that our ancestors understood these things better than we do and modern so called 'scince and medicine' know nothing and in pay of big pharma and socialists AMassiveGay (talk) 21:18, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I need to advocate for a devil. Aquinas literally predates the idea of methodological science by like 400 years.  I get that his philosophy is annoying, but we didn't even have the explicit formulation for hypothesis->controlled experiment->refinement->verify->repeat concept.  No one had expressed that idea, even once.  The arguments can't be identical, because there wasn't anything to reject in favor of bunk.  There was no evolutionary theory with predictive power for him to ignore and zero in on literal interpretation of scripture and thought experiments about cause.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:36, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I misspoke. Let me attempt to clarify, Aquinas did not know better, and ultimately could not have known better, given the time in which he lived. That being said, the fact that later generations of the same field have not moved on to better theories since then, given the additional data they have had to work with, indicates severe problems with that field. I do hope you are being sarcastic.  23:26, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * i'm offended you even have to ask AMassiveGay (talk) 23:29, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Transhumanism
the unspoken truths of "enhancing human brains". This comic encapsulates a lot of what I've thought about transhumanist assertions about the future of humanity in a way that I think is pretty close to accurate. I've already got a mathematics co-processor in the form of a cell phone with wolfram alpha, and it has only improved my insight in the most marginal and infrequent of ways. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:57, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I thought transhumanism was more about getting immortal than having better insight. -Lankaster (talk) 18:55, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The ideological core of transhumanism is using technology to improve (or sometimes just change) humanity. It can include such beliefs relating to genetic engineering, biohacking, automation, cybernetics, transgender issues, artificial intelligence, government technocracy, and internet sociology, but also terrible things like eugenics or an unhealthy obsession with measurement of abstract human characteristics in order to assign moral value to them.  Immortality just tends to be a common aim in those spheres.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:46, 30 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I feel like it really does a good job of depicting the relationship between people and technology in the Information Age in general. We already have amazing technology with vast potential (e.g., the Internet), and in general we aren't creative enough to make anywhere near the fullest use of it.  Like those "artistic" types who shell out on MacBooks ostensibly to do artistic creative endeavours, but who end up just using them to browse Facebook and check email, like they would with any other laptop.  I'd come up with other examples, but, proving my point, I'm not all that creative at the moment.   You Won't BELIEVE What Astronomers Found In This Neutron Star!  - Number Four WILL Shock You!  02:20, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Nowadays what people in the life extension community are talking about is more in the vein of slowing down the biological processes of aging or reversing them in some ways. Better to die at 90 while having the body of a 50 year old than to die at 122 with the body of Jeanne Calment. I think however that the general attitude of transhumanism is becoming important now that human genetic engineering is becoming a reality. This technology has enormous potential to not only cure all genetic diseases and disabilities, but also to decommission the blind force of natural selection and make humans actually intelligently designed. (Goodbye, extremely vulnerable testicles that hang outside your body!) The danger comes when we involve the government: it *must* be involved to a certain extent to assure that this technology is available to everyone and not just to the rich, but on the other hand the government could easily abuse this. The fact that the current research on humans is being done in China terrifies me - it's not hard to imagine nightmare scenarios where prisoners are compelled to undergo unethical genetic experiments against their will. --TeslaK20 (talk) 21:24, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * honestly in my experience cisgender white male transhumanists are really, really boring. and tend to be the ones with those terrible things like eugenics, because they miss the effing point. whatever sterile ubermensch those assholes think is the ideal is uhhhhh so far from it to be absurd, especially when you could, y'know, a cat enby with fiberoptic glowing fur.
 * a world scrubbed of 'imperfection' is a world built on genocide.
 * said the imperfect being... Nah, just playin, I'd keep you.  In fact, I was going through an old thought experiment of mine last night that might be worth applying here.  If aliens came to earth and said "We are only keeping the human species, everything else is done, exterminated, gone.  Problem is, we can't tell the difference between humans and elephants and dogs.  We need you to tell us which animals are humans, and we need you to be honest, because we've got a count of what we can take, calibrated specifically to humans, and everything is getting wiped right now and it will not work unless it is every human, and nothing but."
 * So they go through every creature, and I have to say "human, human, dog, human, raccoon, human, etc." and then they get to Harvey Weinstein. I have to say "human" even though I'm thoroughly unhappy about it.  But we're looking at a future that isn't guided by who is objectively a human and who objectively deserves trans-humanist technology.  We're looking at  very subjective access to this.  It's not genocide, but what are the parameters for the claim that someone "is not eligible for trans-humanism?"Gol Sarnitt (talk) 06:57, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That isn't really the claim per se, it's less that they aren't eligible to be transhumanists and more that their ideal is such a boring power fantasy that, whether they realize it or not, relies on eugenicist ideology. There's enough people in the world that think that something like being queer, or being autistic, or having a certain skin color are defects to be eradicated that I cannot trust that the visions of the "perfect being" that these people often have as the goal of transhumanism are done in completely good faith. If something is inaccessible to the poor, weak, downtrodden, and marginalized, it's a toy, not a revolution.
 * As far as the thought experiment goes, I'd also say Weinstein is a human to the aliens. He must be judged by humans for his actions. As vile as he might be, to say otherwise gives the pretense to the aliens to eradicate any human, and to dehumanize him is to deny the potential for evil that lies within us all. 24.120.253.250 (talk) 05:56, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I would lightly disagree on the thought experiment being solely about eugenicist power fantasy, but I could see you getting to that bridge based on what I described of it. Maybe I've stated that wrong. I've left a lot of it out because I don't really like refuting the racial purist movement online (not an accusation, my friend, just...  They lurk and don't think very hard, so I'm trying not to give fodder).  I think you've nailed the point, though, is it in good faith?  So my point is accessibility.
 * Query; is clean water a toy, or a tool? Is the internet a toy or a tool?  Or is there some other grey-area delineation for these things?  I disagree with your take on transhumanism being likely a power-hungry eugenicist toy, but I wonder if you mean toy as "a luxury" or "something people don't need to survive."  In my experience, a toy is always the latter, while a tool can be both.Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:49, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I mostly mean a toy as in a luxury. The grey-area delineation is public accessibility, mostly. A networked personal computer in 1980 was a luxury; nowadays it is at least in the USA something nearly everyone has access to (if not through personal ownership then through public use at libraries). Clean water was a luxury that was hard to come by in urban areas until the last couple centuries. I feel like the goals of transhumanism are the same way. Immortality is probably well and good, but until it's publically accessible, it won't have much of a net effect, and unless the marginalized can use it freely, it won't have a positive effect. Once both are true, it's a tool 24.120.253.250 (talk) 02:19, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, I follow that. But in relation to human traits that are subjectively considered defective, such as autism or skin color, I'm curious about the all-in immortality idea that you brought up.  I mean, it's part of it, right?
 * This is an open thought experiment, this is not just grilling my favorite BoN here. Let's say tomorrow the immortality pill was made, proven, no side effects other than you don't age, and everybody in the world was entered into a lottery without their consent.  Problem being, the ingredients are impossible to replicate and 100 people total get to take it.  Your number came up.  You can either privately or publicly become ageless, or decline the offer, and your decision will not be publicized without your consent.  Declining will only remove one potential ageless person from the earth (i.e. if you decline and everyone else accepts, there will be 99 immortal people)  As one in 100 in 7.7 billion, chosen randomly through no virtue or trait or reason, you have a unique and completely fair opportunity at immortality.  What is your decision, and what is your justification?  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:40, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The real fun part of that scenario isn't mentioned by you. The nature of immortality is a curse upon whoever receives it, turning everything they love into nothing. I find transhumanism's obsession with the idea, alongside the obsession held by most religions, to be one of the most amusing ironies ever conceived. Hell isn't endless pain delivered by sadistic captures, it's having your own mind, your own likes and dislikes turn against you, purely through the lens of time. 05:00, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * But that is the fun of a thought experiment! Tough questions, apply them to yourself, see what morally and ethically shakes out, no real wrong answers.  I don't ask questions to prove a point, I despise that method of point-making.  So I have to point out, because you're right, you can't escape the human experience with either decision, that you didn't answer the question; do you eat/not eat the pill, do you eat/not eat the pill publicly or privately? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:51, 13 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Full disclosure, my gut reaction is to eat the pill publicly so I am accountable for eating the pill, because I can't justify passing an opportunity like that, even if I'm not sure I'm the best candidate. But I do have reservations on this decision, because then I'd be under scrutiny forever.  It would be easier to do it privately but then who could I connect with before it got out?  I could refuse publicly, which would make me feel really good about my disagreement with the idea of 100 people being immortal and that's it, I mean, in ways I can't describe, but that would also place a lot of responsibility on me, or I could refuse it privately and know I will never be believed about something that really happened in my life. It's a pretty fresh one, I don't have an answer.  I expect after a few years, my gut reaction will probably not be my final take on it, but when you gotta go Kant, you gotta go Kant.
 * Also, this is a very roundabout way of removing accessibility from the discussion, and I apologize for that, but I think it still applies to the topic. I'd like to get back to my pet topic of accessibility to transhumanism, but I'm over that for the moment.  If it's not deemed insane by the mods, I'd like this topic to remain open as is, and I will hopefully start a new topic in the future about the accessibility of transhumanism.  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 06:19, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd probably also eat the pill, but privately. I don't generally want to make a spectacle, and I recognize that it would be a toy. But despite humanity's failings, the world is simply too *interesting* to not want to see. Which is also part of why I'd trust a trans woman who just wants to make herself into a cybernetic glowing catgirl over literally any cishet white guy's vision of transhumanism. People are *interesting*. Ideology based on purity is boring.
 * Well, when you put it like that I guess it would be somewhat embarrassing to not answer. While I would no doubt be tempted to consume the immortality pill, I ultimately would not. This goes back to my views on immortality, wherein the human mind ultimately cannot cope with the sheer scale of time, making the immortal in question either a psychopathic libertine (though even that would have its limits) or a withdrawn cynic, to name a few examples. It is my view that such a state is ultimately self destructive in the long run, and given I wish to avoid such a state I would, of course, avoid taking the pill. 23:21, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * (in pill V1 convo) I take it you mean it's self destructive in the long run as part of the human experience to never have to consider death, and not just from your own experience. I wonder if there could be anyone that you know you would hand the (V1)pill over to.Gol Sarnitt (talk) 06:51, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Extreme pessimism: I wouldn't ever take the pill and I would try to convince everyone else not to. What are you going to do in your spare time after 10,000 years? Unless you only hang out with other immortals...how many times can you start a relationship with someone new, and lose them watching them die and so on. You'll certainly watch your children die. And your friends. Can you still have the same lust for life or inspiration or drive after 100,000 years? What if an asteroid hits the planet Earth? Then you'll be flying around in space forever, likely with no one to talk to or do anything. Of course, you'll definitely go insane eventually but in the meantime, youre just floating and staring into darkness. What if you get trapped under something heavy and no one is around? What if people are terrified of you and imprison you, or do medical experiments on you to try and find some magical (though impossible) way to extract your immortality. Assuming you make it into space and travel the universe in reliable vehicles...after 10,000,000 years, will you even want to travel somewhere new, want to ever touch a musical instrument, learn a language, tell your story to others, get out of bed, look at yourself in a mirror. The risks of a very long run of suffering are too high and some of them would be very very very unpleasant. What if the universe reaches maximal entropy (except I would imagine your own atoms stay together magically), existing alone in a soup of barely moving elementary particles FOREVER is an appetising future. The benefit is, at least for a while, a very cool ride on a track of life. I believe after one billion years you would regret taking that pill. Shabi  DOO  23:27, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for elaborating on my own views, though indirectly. I doubt it would take more than 5,000 years though. 00:00, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

at the risk of being overly contrary and with my ignorance firmly on my sleeve, i can honestly say i have no idea what is being said here. i can may be grasp the a concept or two but there are so many layers of abstraction and so far away from my realms of experience i can find no anchor to ground it in a way that makes sense to me or serves any purpose or reveal any truth that seems in any way real to me. even the more grounded ideas seem to hinge on assumptions of where we will be decades from now with overly optimistic expectations of fantastical utopias and even the nightmare scenerios that have a tinge of possibility have much reaching attached. my point here, beyond pissiness, is that when the most achievable and plausible of any of these dreams require so much forward planning, with such a long term view needed that it is simply impossible for a numbnuts like me to even comprehend and when all my concerns are decidedly short term, where does that leave us when we have to deal with very real problems, ie climate change, that have solutions that can only work with that forward planning, with that long term view, and is just not real to me, despite the science being cast iron, knowing, believing even, that its a problem, but just not real to me and wont be until i need a boat travel across london or i am literally on fire? not transhumanism i know, but long term vs short term problems are tangentially connected, and its been nagging at me awhile AMassiveGay (talk) 01:23, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * On the surface it seems like the claim "If we were immortal we would take climate change seriously. Instead we lovingly pass on the catastrophy to our children and theirs and theirs and theirs. Possibly wed take it more seriously. Or people would try much harder faster to get off this planet. Buuuuuut...humans fuck up their environment and social structures on a daily basis including very stupid acts which they know will have consequences later in their life time...but do it anyways. I'm not sure immortality would pump up the human brain and make us collectively a little less ridiculous as a collective of primate brains. Shabi  DOO  10:22, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * This is my favorite response so far. I mean, immortality doesn't just have the downsides of being trapped under a boulder forever, it has the downside of watching humanity struggle with challenges that you are existentially removed from. I've noticed people really want to point out the downsides of immortality, and I agree with them, but haven't really answered if they would take the pill. Which, I'm willing to blow off and say is fine, because it's not an easy question.  Let me adjust it, in relation to transhumanism.  The pill doesn't make you immortal, it makes you immune to disease and aging.  You would still die without oxygen or blood or use of vital organs.  You don't age, you get to live as long as your body stays sufficiently intact for current and future medicine to manage such damage. Say, EMTs stop you from bleeding out, or you survive the loss of limbs and you get prosthetics.  You could always kill yourself, but generally, you're not trapped and you're not a superhero.  Pill version 2.0, take it?  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 06:22, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Effect of Trump on conspiracy theoriesl?
A lot of conspiracy theories have the US government as perpetrator e.g. chemtrails, 9/11, MK Ultra, FEMA camps, NASA niburu, HAARP, etc. and a major argument of conspiracy types has always been "you can't trust the government, it lies to us about everything". In the past, one could dismiss this by pointing out that yes there is the usual political shit throwing and the usual secrecy for national security, but the government was not always lying and generally could be trusted. Now with the current president, you can't really say that anymore; he lies about basic obvious stuff, and his appointees are mostly grifters and incompetents. So now that the government literally lies all the time, what does this mean for the spread of conspiracy theories? 24.91.159.57 (talk) 14:19, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It works like this: If you're conspiracy crank who hates Trump then he's part of the evil conspiracy. If you're a conspiracy crank who likes Trump, then things become much more interesting. See, in the latter case Trump is secretly working to bring down the evil conspiracy from within, and restore peace and happiness for all, and his toxic rhetoric is either proof of that (if you agree with it) or a smokescreen (if you disagree with it but still like Trump for some reason). Any way you slice it, conspiracy crank "logic" is on full display, making sure they can never, ever, be wrong. 14:47, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Wow! You mean there really was WMD in Iraq? nobspiss in my ear 03:26, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Given the lack of references to Iraq or WMDs in the previous posts your post likely counts as a red herring, and as thus can be safely filed under "irrelevant". 18:41, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thou faithless and perverse generation, how long will I bear with you? The Deep state coup was brought to you by the same neocon cabal that gave you Iraqi WMD, and John Brennan was behind both. nobspiss in my ear 03:01, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * At least Brennan is a different red herring than the usual Hillary malarkey. Millennium Scallion (talk) 13:42, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

This weekend
Will RW celebrate the Winter Solstice (possibly by temporarily removing the brackets round the brain of the logo)? Anna Livia (talk) 17:55, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * We can celebrate the Winter Solstice by sacrificing a goat to the FSM. Ɖøn Ĵuan (talk) 18:38, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Don Juan, er, see Commandment #2. Poor goat. 20:39, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * As 'the solstices and equinoxes' are celebrated by being sky clad (unless you happen to be anywhere here, all you need is to sacrifice the goats' hair. Anna Livia (talk) 00:00, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't use the brain logo anyway, I changed my css to show a cross-head screwdriver pattern instead. 23:17, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Goat sacrifice it is, then. Ɖøn Ĵuan (talk) 09:15, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Alice Walker
Alice Walker has apparently been expressing antisemitic views for years, and has now gone completely off the deep end by endorsing a David Icke book in a New York Times interview yesterday. Bongolian (talk) 17:50, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Lizard people conspiracy is less "deep end" than Global Jewish Cabal conspiracy. Icke is awful, but mostly because of how he enables the latter conspiracists.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:55, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Icke probably comes closer than anyone else to creating a Grand Unified Conspiracy Theory. His lizard people manage to tie together Aryan supermen, Jewish conspiracies, End Times hoodoo, ancient astronauts, and much else besides. If you have an interest in That Sort of Thing he probably gives you more bang for your buck than other writers do. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 20:50, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * My grand unified conspiracy theory is easier. The internet is out to get me.  ALL OF IT  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:52, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Not that grand or unified then. Because everyone knows the Internet is only half of it all.


 * True, the other half is detailed in books and DVDs that you have to buy over the Internet, but, meh. (Anyhow the Internet is out to get everyone anyhow.  Just look at your bill.) Kencolt (talk) 09:25, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * does he still think he jesus? AMassiveGay (talk) 21:35, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry For Mustard
I am sorry I threatened your families with mustard. 184.181.12.187 (talk) 18:55, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm glad the healing crystal meth helped. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:57, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Fawful, is that you?! 20:30, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * IT IS I WHO ADDED THE NUTS TO THAT STATUE! 20:37, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Walnuts? Ɖøn Ĵuan (talk) 20:47, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I assume regular Nuts, but they could be Super Nuts or even Ultra Nuts. 20:53, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You forgot Max Nuts you fink-rat. 21:15, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * What about Grand Nuts? Ɖøn Ĵuan (talk) 21:23, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No peanuts? 23:13, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I can't believe no one brought up almonds. Ɖøn Ĵuan (talk) 02:29, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * that's because I don't think you'll find Max Nuts THAT early in the game. peanuts are ammunition only.  I don't know what an almond is aside from a name of a Squirrel Eggling. Maybe you're talking about Power Beans, though you can't make the damn fine Teeheespresso with those because they're not neither Woo Beans nor Hee Beans, and you need 5 Woo Beans and 10 Hee Beans to make one of those (6 and 4 after the shop is refurbished). That being said, they do raise your power permanently, which is useful if you need to use Bros. moves such as the Magic Window when taking down Junker.  04:54, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Shrooms do all that, and more. If you want to get high, just use shrooms. If you want to become a pyrokinetic, just use shrooms, etc etc etc. Ɖøn Ĵuan (talk) 09:13, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * If you don't mind me nerding more, actually, there's a few things. If you want to get high, you can use a P-Balloon, P-Wing, Super Leaf, Cape Feather, Super Acorn, Red Star, Wing Cap (or Wings in the remake), but the Propeller Mushroom is a shroom that does grant you a costume that lets you soar into the sky. The Mini Mushroom also grants you very floaty jumps, but wouldn't go so high as these. There's also the Bee Mushroom that grants some flight, but avoid water, you'll lose the powerup. Shrooms don't grant you fire. You'll have to use a flower, of course! Or you can get Firebrand ability, but that requires you to visit the Fire God in the Fire Palace.
 * P.S. If you want drug-induced hallucinations, you'll have to touch Fuzzy, you'll get dizzy. But it's the white fluffy variant, not those goofy black spiky things you see often attached to rails. Those just hurt you. 20:16, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I have to admit, you're joke about "getting high" as in "kite" was legitimately funny. Bravo. Ɖøn Ĵuan (talk) 00:04, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

When people scream "Yellowstone will erupt soon"!
While it is true that Yellowstone is steadily waking up, it is not going to erupt soon.

If Yellowstone were to erupt in say, 1 year don't put people into panic mode. Let the (qualified) scientists do their jobs and analyze the data. Have them inform emergency management officials and make a plan of action. Afterwards, let the scientists analyze the data again.

Saying that Yellowstone will erupt without data and analysis helps nobody. Mixing in New World Order and one world government garbage destroys all credibility. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 20:34, 18 December 2018 (UTC)


 * But what if it goes off... Isn't there any action plan at all? 21:05, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

This YouTube channel looks like it deserves a page
Here's a channel filled with a bunch of woo. Should it get its own page? https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCqT3WzfYotW4pNv1EbA99Dw Psychiclie (talk) 00:37, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * They are a nothing, lacking value or purpose. Ignore them. 00:58, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks like it could get a lot bigger. It is relatively new. I mean, it does look crazy. Psychiclie (talk) 01:10, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It looks like unintelligent twelve year old set it up to prank their friends. In other words it looks like lazy crap. 01:12, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree- it is crap- but it is still every bit as awful and misleading as The Glenn Beck show. I think it could use a page. Can you make one? If you don't want to, I can. Psychiclie (talk) 01:20, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your enthusiasm but I'm afraid that won't be necessary. Only seven views but no subscribers? Not worth it. Nerd (talk) 01:24, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The measure of a channel's insanity is not determined by how popular it is. If it's stupid, it should be talked about here. Psychiclie (talk) 01:33, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Isn't that what we're currently doing right now? Tinribmancer (talk) 01:47, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Its relevance to our mission notwithstanding, it is not particularly notable. This channel is a YouTube nobody. Let's not help it become any more famous. Nerd (talk) 02:16, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * There seems to be some threshold for how important it is, otherwise I don't think this would've happened. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 02:20, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Huh. Maybe you oughta record any channel with insane ideas, seeing as how this is supposed to be the most extensive record of kookery anywhere and all. Psychiclie (talk) 02:29, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I neither know who they are nor do I care. This conversation has not only failed to alter that opinion, it has reinforced it. 03:45, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

See RationalWiki:The great Youtube purge. There are thousands of YouTubers talking the kind of bollocks that we aim to debunk on this site. Most of them are talking it to extremely small audiences. We cannot possibly have articles on all of them and there's really not much to say about most of them anyway. That's why we decided in September this year to now only have articles about YouTubers with at least a thousand subscribers. It's not how crazy a YouTuber is that's important, it's how many other people are buying into that craziness. Spud (talk) 04:28, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the consensus has been reached. I also do not agree on creating the page for the reasons stated. I don't think you should continue pushing for its creation. Let it go. 04:44, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Relevant resources:
 * Is User:Psychiclie a sockpuppet of the permabanned User:Logicnsuch and ban-evading User:Logicnsuchreborn?
 * (See: GrammarCommie's exposé and User talk:Logicnsuch)
 * On multiple occasions, User:Logicnsuch had tried to spam the Saloon bar by promoting — possibly using reverse psychology — the irrelevant YouTube channel "Videos for People".
 * (See: RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive291,
 * RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive291, and
 * this edit war.)
 * Psychiclie edit warred on the Bill Nye debates Ken Ham as well as the Ken Ham articles, to push for the inclusion of irrelevant YouTuber "truk tugennov"'s irrelevant video "The Bill Nye Ken Ham debate but it's All Star by Smash Mouth".
 * (See: one, two, three, four, five, six, seven)
 * The edit wars were fought between 20:56, 29 September 2018 and 21:47, 29 September 2018, on the same day the video was uploaded to YouTube. Coincidence?
 * Besides, the video still has very few views. Surely it must be pure chance that Psychiclie was among the first to discover this video. Psychiclie could totally not have been the one who made that video, right?
 * (See: DuceMoosolini's revelation)
 * "Science 2.0", the irrelevant YouTube channel in question, was created on 16 December 2018. The two videos it currently has were uploaded on 16 December 2018 and 17 December 2018 respectively. Then, only two days later, on 19 December 2018, a certain Psychiclie starts promoting — again possibly using reverse psychology — the channel here in the Saloon bar. What a fluke!
 * Furthermore, according to its "About" section, the channel currently has very few views. It certainly must have been another accident that Psychiclie was among the first few who found this channel. Again, Psychiclie could totally not have been the one who made this YouTube channel, right?
 * Perhaps Psychiclie should be allowed to create an article about (t)his YouTube channel. After doing so, not only can the article be deleted for its lack of relevance and its shameless self-promotion, now there will also be sufficient reason to permaban Psychiclie.
 * 77.111.245.125 (talk) 08:54, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Done. Ɖøn Ĵuan (talk) 11:23, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Phrenology is not dead
Anyone ever think the incel community might meticulously scour magazines for clues? I mean, this applies to astrology too.

https://www.cosmopolitan.com/style-beauty/beauty/advice/g3341/what-your-facial-features-are-saying/

Granted this is from 2013, but that is only five years ago.

Check back to 1903. 100 and... I mean...  forgive me, my forehead must be a little short, and we all have calculators on our phones.

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/47937/47937-h/47937-h.htm

Every time I wonder what pseudoscience is up to these days, and then conflate my terms with popular magazines, I am only disappointed as a human. The old adage goes, "tradition doesn't worship the ashes, it keeps the fire alive." Ok, but... Phrenology is also still kind of a thing. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 07:40, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * This stuff will never die (probably). In 2011, the Daily Mail was reporting on the facial features that lead to success in business (Business Insider link). I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader how many of these features can be found on Donald Trump or Mark Zuckerberg. --Annanoon (talk) 12:22, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Given that it's the Daily Mail you're citing, I think it's safe to apply Scopie's Law. Ɖøn Ĵuan (talk) 12:27, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * ContraPoints ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:53, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The problem I have is that this isn't Phrenology.


 * People have been reading other people's intent-- real or otherwise-- from facial features since, well, pretty much forever. It may not be "rational", but it's (sadly) natural to be somewhat more trusting of the attractive than the unattractive.  Real Life and fiction both tend to go for the "Better" looking individual as the most trustworthy, often despite objective reality.


 * Phrenology, on the other hand, isn't visible from facial features-- it's extrapolating mental and personality variations from the shape and topography of the human skull-- yes, that means the bumps on your head, you clowns. No, a hammer won't actually make a difference (except as much as brain damage will effect human behavior sometimes).  But in general, this isn't visible-- Evil Arnie has a somewhat wrong-lumpy skull next to Angelic Irvin, but if Arnie is a handsome type while Irvin has multiple warts and boils, that won't help unless you happen to have a phrenologist on hand.


 * Well, no. Since Phrenology IS bullshit, it won't help anyway, but you get my point.


 * I guess I'm just being a bit picky here, but I kinda like my call-outs of pseudoscience to call out the right pseudoscience... lest we give the woo-meisters any wiggle room by allowing them to crow, "Ah, but you see, I wasn't talking about X, but Y, which is much like X to your uneducated eyes, but is actually based on Y-ness, as is easily seen by my pseudo-educated eyes!" Which they will call as a win.Kencolt (talk) 18:22, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Or you call that asinine pedantry when they do it and move on with your life. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:38, 19 December 2018 (UTC)


 * No, I'd say he's technically correct. THE BEST KIND OF CORRECT.  It's not phrenology, phrenology being, I guess, probably as dead as it could be in a literal definition.  And purism for vocabulary has a place, and I don't think I'd spend the time to hunt for justifications against this argument here.  Fine, they aren't phrenologists.  Worrying about people saying "I'm not part of the literal phrenology circle" is like worrying a white supremacist would say they aren't a white supremacist because they think Asians are better than whites.  I think that's ikanreed's pedantry angle, but that's 100% my own Godwin explanation.
 * Pedantic is usually a pejorative. Like "moves slowly" or "doesn't work well with others."  But you clearly know what phrenology is.  I'm coming from a place where if you can draw the parallels, you can ask someone who believes facial features belie personality traits if phrenology didn't have it right when they solved issues based on bumps on the head.  You can ask if these matter any more than astrology can have it right based on where Virgo and Pisces sat on the day you got pushed into the world.  If they don't want to be called phrenologists, ok, don't call them that, but ask why they aren't phrenologists, rather than assuming they don't share every line of reasoning with a phrenologist.  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:37, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

What do you think of PewDiePie?
I ask because T-series is going to pass him soon. 184.181.12.187 (talk) 18:13, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * He's a fucking nong. -- MtD Bogan   19:11, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Why do you think that way about him? 184.181.12.187 (talk) 19:14, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Because he's a narcissistic, homophobic, racist man-baby with too much time on his hands. What the fuck is T-series? -- MtD Bogan   19:23, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * PewdiePie isn't racist. Nice strawman I love how you accuse the right af being mindless yet you believe WSJ blindly. 108.208.14.123 (talk) 13:05, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Where are you getting "homophobic" and "racist" from? Also, T-series is a company with a YouTube channel that has almost as many subscribers as PewDiePie. 184.181.12.187 (talk) 19:43, 10 December 2018 (UTC)



Use a signature. Now,

Never watched his videos. Heard bad things about him though. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 19:38, 10 December 2018 (UTC)


 * What I think about PewDiePie is that I don't think about him. But seriously, the people on my floor at college keep talking about T-series beginning to surpass him, it's really goddamn irritating and pointless, so please don't drag it here. RoninMacbeth (talk) 21:42, 10 December 2018 (UTC)


 * This post from the AV Club says it better than I can. --Annanoon (talk) 09:59, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah I'm gonna be real with you that article presents less than compelling reasons as to why Pewdiepie is the worst. First off, it's about YouTube Rewind (which was a dumpster fire). Second off, its reasons for disliking Pewdiepie are A) he's racist [it's possible they hyperlinked something there but I don't remember], B) he's the favourite YouTuber of Nazis [can I get a Godwin's Law in the chat? Also, we shouldn't judge content creators based on their fanbases but on the quality of their actual content], and C) he's the worst. That's less than informative. 14:39, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * People say he's racist just because he did the seig heil, said the n-word, spent an entire conan exiles video pretending to be a nazi, paid people to hold signs saying "death to jews" on it and shouted out a literal nazi's youtube channel (the channel in question did several videos on far right interpretations of media, including putting several minutes of raw nazi rally footage in one). Its starting to be a little "if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck" by this point. Vorarchivist (talk) 03:08, 20 December 2018
 * A better question would be this: Who fucking cares? Ɖøn Ĵuan (talk) 08:56, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * His "broarmy", I think... Tinribmancer (talk) 01:53, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Isn't he an important guy? People watch him and want to be like him?  I saw this today and lost my shit laughing, because I resell things that are covered in marker all the time.  https://wokesloth.com/dckhead-teen-forced-to-clean-up-swastika-he-drew-while-bystanders-roast-him/stefan/
 * You Saw the guy commenting on it?50.86.52.193 (talk) 21:58, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I hate permanent marker. I hate Nazism.  Permanent marker is a more consistent issue in my life that Nazism.  I think Nazi symbolism as a self-referential joke is so incredibly low-brow that it's dumber than pointlessly drawing dicks on things, and I think drawing dicks has been played out since Superbad.  I also know exactly how to get that permanent marker up without damaging the gloss on the floor, you go back to the shop behind you and you buy hairspray from the beauty department and isopropyl from the pharmacy.  But no, I agree, make him keep scrubbing with that glass cleaner.  They let him off easy with whatever cleaner they give him second.
 * I think PewdiePie is ok for what he is, but I'm not under 10 years old, and I wasn't under 10 years old when he started. I think he thrives on the lowest brow of comedy, and he can't even react to better comedy than his own without saying "Bro...  This is weird, bro."  So, yeah, broarmy is apt. I'm sure this dude is sorry, but a swastika is just such an irresistible prank, bro. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 06:02, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Teacher fired for refusing to use transgender student's pronouns
NBCnews

A Virginia high school teacher who refused to use a transgender student’s new pronouns has been fired [...] for insubordination. [...] It's not suggested that the 47-year-old West Point High School French teacher deliberately referred to the student using female pronouns in the student's presence, but in conversations with others. Witnesses described a "slip-up" when the student was about to run into a wall and Vlaming told others to stop "her." [...] Vlaming told superiors that his Christian faith prevented him from using male pronouns for the student. [...] Vlaming's attorney, Shawn Voyles, says his client offered to use the student's name and to avoid feminine pronouns, but Voyles says the school was unwilling to accept the compromise. [...] Nondiscrimination policies were updated a year ago to include protections for gender identity, but didn't include guidance on gender pronoun use [...] "One of those rights that is not curtailed is to be free from being compelled to speak something that violates your conscience," Voyles said.

Thinker(unlicensed) 13:49, 11 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Big yikes. Compelled speech is right up there with equality of outcome on my list of biggest fears. I hope this teacher appeals to a court; surely they'll rule in favour of the First Amendment. 14:32, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hiding behind religion aside (he can disobey his religion, he just chooses not to) It sounds like a heat of the moment slip-up that at worst should have gotten him a warning or some other form of slap-on-the-wrist style punishment. It also sounds like the school failed in their responsibilities by not explaining the whole pronoun thing to the teachers in a comprehensive manner. 14:40, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * All I can say is that this will probably become a dragged out legal battle. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 15:33, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * sounded like an out right refusal than a slip of the tongue. i mean if you as a school take a decision to support and nurture your students with a view to whatever their circumstances, pronouns seem to be the least you could be required to do. if at the proceeding hearing to discuss 'slip ups', compromise is essentially saying, no you will not treat your students with the respect and acceptance that they should rightfully expect from their teachers, that will single out and make clear your disapproval. a flat out refusal? thats drawing a line in the sand. this teacher gave the school no alternative. just how is saying 'he' instead of 'she' violate your conscience? is it not common decency to accept the decisions of your students about questions of their own identity? is not using the preferred pronouns of a student such minor thing to have to do for your students and offers no validation of things you dont like beyond an acceptance of the fact that a student has come to this decision, and its theirs alone to make. you can respect their agency in making such decisions. if all that is required of you, the only bearing it would likely have your life, is to remember this student prefers 'he' to 'she', that this is important to them, that it is not about you. if thats too much for you, that you require compromise on this one small thing, maybe not be a teacher AMassiveGay (talk) 16:16, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. First amendment rights don't come into it, any more than if a teacher referred to pupils as niggers or sluts, or refused to call a hispanic kid named Jesus by their proper name because that's the Lord's name, or any other shit. It's not much compulsion to refer to someone by a correct or non-offensive word in the course of your job. --Annanoon (talk) 16:27, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not true that the teacher gave the school no alternative, he offered to use the student's name and to avoid feminine pronouns, but the school was unwilling to accept the compromise. Thinker(unlicensed) 19:56, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * read the bit where i discuss compromise AMassiveGay (talk) 20:12, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm kind of growing ambivalent to the idea that compromising on someone's human rights and dignity is at all a good or productive idea. We cannot compromise with people who believe that Black people only deserve some rights, or feel that Black people should be grateful that white people gave them some rights, and we should not do so for people who refuse to acknowledge trans rights. RoninMacbeth (talk) 20:27, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * But what trans right is here in action? If it is a right to not be called by the non-preferred pronoun (misgendering), then the teacher can just call the student by name and avoid pronouns, as the teacher proposed, and no right will be broken. Thinker(unlicensed) 20:37, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * a school has duty of care to its students. pointedly referring to a particular student by name only, in a fashion that no other student would have been subjected to, is not conducive to the welfare of the student. to single out a student every time you speak to them is not conducive to the welfare of the student. if your compromise to not have use the preferred pronouns is to not use the preferred pronouns, its not really a compromise, its what you are aiming for in the first place. its not as if he was being to asked was a huge concession of some kind. he was not being asked to support a position against his beliefs. he was being asked to have the decency to respect the choices of his students. to show some basic respect. he chose not to. he chose to make it an issue. he chose to stigmatise and disrespect his student. he chose to pass judgement on the life choices of a student when good manners would have avoided all of this and in no way compromise his own beliefs. was it his job to promote or endorse trans rights? no. he could have bitten his tongue like a grown up. the compromise would have been using he instead of she, as requested. not an endorsement or promotion of things that he did not approve, just care and consideration for a student in his care - his actual job. he chose instead to martyr himself AMassiveGay (talk) 21:45, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

The difference here is that calling people racial slurs falls under hate speech – speech that is prohibited, which isn't a new concept (see libel and slander laws). The school was compelling teachers to call students by their preferred pronouns, and compelled speech is a dangerous precedent to set. The teacher did also at least try to compromise. Sure, his compromise isn't ideal (calling a student by their name alone is awkward), but at this point everyone in the school knows they're transgender. I'd also like to point out that instances where the student will be named instead of a pronoun being used are relatively few: it would never be with the student (the teacher could use the gender-neutral 'you') and realistically unless the student is causing trouble the teacher probably won't have that many break-room conversations about the student in which extended use of the name alone will be really awkward.

How has he stigmatised his student? If anything, the school's actions against him have made the student feel more protected and less stigmatised because the teacher who wouldn't use the student's preferred pronouns has been fired. I don't see the issue here. There is also no indication that the teacher did anything less than respect the student (aside from pronoun use). It was a heat of the moment panic as he watched the student about to run into the wall. The article also mentions that there were no guidelines concerning pronoun use; could it be that the school has failed both parties? 04:08, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The point is, Vlaming messed up. And even if he, in the heat of the moment, misgendered his student and it got overblown, his solution was to "never use a pronoun with this student" which is not a solution and his defense was "in the moment, his religion guided his thinking."  You can disagree with the circumstances of the accusation all you want, but Vlaming and his defense offer a garbage defense and a garbage solution to the problem.  Vlaming could have said he would solve this by taking the student into consideration and trying to change his outlook, Vlaming could have defended himself by saying "I made a mistake."  But the defense was, God told him to call that student "her."  The solution was "I will only call that student by that student's name from now on."  Poor, people get fired all the time for making mistakes and having garbage defenses for them.  He's lucky he got the chance to come up with such a stupid solution before he got canned.  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:25, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * And as far as the "compelled speech" argument goes, no, it's not "compelled speech," that is a made up thing. Vlaming is a person in limited guardianship of minors.  It's not black and white, it's not down to whether Vlaming is 100% or 0% or 50% correct.  I worked daycare at a church in high school.  I was required to have child CPR training.  If I had the training, and failed, by any excuse of "didn't know" or "couldn't do it" or "didn't think I should have" to give a child in need life-saving CPR, would I have been brought up on charges of "failure to provide compelled child CPR?"  No, the daycare would have been investigated over a dead child and I'd probably just get fired.  I'd have to live with my failure to act responsibly.  Vlaming isn't a martyr in the made up compelled speech war.  He's just a dude who was too shitty at his job to keep it.  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:48, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * If pointedly referring to a particular student by name only is discriminatory, then the teacher could decide to call all students by names avoiding pronouns. But apparently also that would have leaded him to getting fired.
 * I think that the situation is quite complicate:
 * (1) Who decide the correct pronoun a student should be called? If the answer is "the student", then many problems rise: How often the student can change the preferred pronoun? Can the student decide any pronoun or must he stick to some list like "she, he, they, it"? In the second case, who decide the list?
 * (2) Is misgendering always a form of abuse? What if a teacher see in the corridor a student who looks male and refers to the student as "he", but then it turns out that the student preferred pronouns is "she". What if a teacher just doesn't remember a student preferred pronoun? (A teacher can have hundred of students.)
 * (3) Should somebody be forced by law to use certain pronouns? I mean, if a teacher decide to use only names (or only neutral pronouns) to refer to his students, and so he is not misgendering anybody, how could be justified a law that forces him to pronounce sentences containing certain pronouns?
 * Thinker(unlicensed) 09:28, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You're missing the point with compelled speech and your analogy isn't relevantly similar so we can't draw conclusions from it. Vlaming's case is one of the church telling him to do CPR should a child need it and not giving him the training to do so. There were no guidelines and the school admits this. Also, compelled speech is far from a "made up" concept. Check the fifth amendment, which gives you the right to refuse to testify against yourself; in other words, the court cannot compel you to testify in a manor that is detrimental to you and your case. That's been around since 1789 and the concept could – and probably does – go back further (I'd have to do some research into English law). Sure, his defense was bland, uninteresting, and garbage. But the point is still the same. An extension of the federal government (a public school) is trying to compel Vlaming to use pronouns that he can't, in good conscience, use. That's a violation of his first amendment rights because they're compelling him to say something. In this case, he isn't a free agent with unimpeded agency because his employer is compelling him to say something. His speech is being restricted because of his employer. 17:02, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 17:04, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * "An extension of the federal government (a public school) is trying to compel Vlaming to use pronouns that he can't, in good conscience, use." Oh for fuck's sake!!! They aren't asking him to perform a morally questionable act!!! His conscious should not be bothered by addressing someone in a way that they prefer, no different than using a version of their name that they prefer over the version they were born with. If I were to refer to him with a feminine name and feminine pronouns, even after he had asked me to stop, could that not be construed as inappropriate? And finally, the fact that someone is forced to treat another human with basic manners and decency is not indicative of overreach, rather it indicates a failing on the part of the individual in question, who must (apparently) be dragged kicking and screaming into maturity. This isn't that fucking complicated, not unless you think dictates from a fictional being, conveyed via a work of fiction somehow amount to more than basic human empathy.  18:53, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * "If I were to refer to him with a feminine name and feminine pronouns, even after he had asked me to stop, could that not be construed as inappropriate?" That's not the issue being discussed. The teacher proposed to use only the student name and to avoid pronouns, but he still got fired.
 * "no different than using a version of their name that they prefer over the version they were born with" If a student's name is "Robert", but he prefers to be called "Bob", then he can ask the teacher to call him so, and the teacher may or may not follow the student request. I hope nobody is arguing that a teacher should be fired if he refuses to call the student "Bob". Thinker(unlicensed) 20:23, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * it singles out this one student. thats patently a poor way to for a teacher to handle their students. he made literally no effort here. he made literally no effort to respect the wishes of this student, showed no tolerance at all and has the gall to complain about the intolerence of others. tell me how addressing a student with their preferred pronouns is against his religious beliefs? how? it doesnt endorse anything. where is the intolerence here? where is the oppression? for a teacher, the welfare of their students should be paramount. their own beliefs and views cannot supercede this. you going to need more than you disagree with how they would prefer be addressed. it is not required that a student must share your beliefs but you are still required to respect theirs. your own beliefs are left at the door when you go to work. you will be in contact all the time with people of differing views and faiths and they should all be treated with respect. you dont get to pick and choose whos beliefs you think are valid. at the most basic level, the most superficial, how you address someone reflects that. its dicks like this that we have legislation to prevent discrimination. if your job puts you in a position where you cant do that, you are in the wrong job. if you are teacher? find other employment. he refused to use masculine pronouns and the student has said he was made to feel uncomfortable and singled. the teacher has said he 'misses the female version of this student'. the parents felt similarly belittled when they talked to him. as for your robert vs bob argument - if the student feels uncomfortable and singled out over it, that you have been told this, that you have been asked not to, but you refuse and continue, then yes are a dick and should be fired. thats not how teachers should treat their students. if you are a teacher, and your religious views prevent you from even addressing your students in manner that doesnt belittle them, you should not be a teacher. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:37, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Look, it doesn't matter that his conscience shouldn't be bothered. It's that in this case it is, and he's using that as a defense. If I were in his shoes would I call the student whatever the student wishes to be called? Of course. But if he feels a moral conviction that, in this case, he cannot in good conscience commit an action, we should not impede on his agency by coercing or compelling his speech. I'd also like to note that this is, in fact, a case about overreach. You boiling it down to "treating someone with basic human decency and respect" oversimplifies and leaves out key details of the issue. If that were really the issue, then sure, that's a good summary. But it isn't. This isn't a case of the teacher spitting on the student, actively demeaning the student, calling the student "stupid" or "worthless" or using a racial slur. That would be a good use of your simplification. But this is different. This is a case in which the school set out rules that compelled speech and did not set out guidelines but expected the teacher to follow them. When he, in a heat of the moment panic (concerned for the student's safety, no less), used the wrong pronoun, he got fired. This isn't about respect or human decency. It's about the school trying to compel speech.

His compromise singles out the student in very rare cases. Also, tolerance is classically defined as "live and let live," which is what it sounds like Vlaming was trying to do. He failed and slipped up. I get it. Everyone fails. But "showing no tolerance" isn't true. Tolerance does not mean "agreement with your beliefs" or anything of the sort. Vlaming is under no contract to agree with the student's beliefs, but he does need to respect them. And he tried. And failed. I get it. And I know that the compromise doesn't feel very... well, compromise-y. But tolerance works both ways. Vlaming's beliefs should be tolerated and respected as well and the compromise he suggested singles out the student in rare cases where the student isn't present. That's better than a lot of alternatives that Vlaming could have come up with. Additionally, could you cite your source concerning "he refused to use masculine pronouns and the student has said he was made to feel uncomfortable and singled. the [sic] teacher has said he 'misses the female version of this student'. the [sic] parents felt similarly belittled when they talked to him."? Thank you. Also, "you dont [sic] get to pick and choose whos [sic] beliefs you think are valid" isn't a meaningful statement. Picking and choosing which worldviews and beliefs "I think are valid" is a fundamental part of being a thinking person. We can't pick and choose what is objectively valid, but subjectively in light of what evidence we have, yes, we are entitled to that choice.

Finally, I think it's best that we archive this and leave it alone. We haven't gotten anywhere. Some fall on the compelled speech side, some fall on the use of preferred pronouns side, and no one has been swayed either way. If we aren't getting anywhere with (less than) rational discussion, then I think it's time to leave it alone. Not worth wasting more time arguing on the internet. 03:27, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * the thing is, refusing to acknowledge someone's name and pronouns is inherently dehumanizing and as such actively demeaning, especially when the reason the teacher gave was intentional, not accidental. religious intent has been used as a defense for malicious behavior from the oppressor to the marginalized for how many centuries? the "compromise" isn't one, it's a refusal to acknowledge the student for who he is. the only compelled speech is the teacher's religion refusing to acknowledge the humanity of trans people.
 * trans rights beat cis comfort every. single. time. 24.120.253.250 (talk) 04:56, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * WOT, are you crazy! Free speech should be protected. Just because someone has beliefs you disagree with doesn't mean they should be fired. Also it's "dehumanizing" to refuse to call someone their pronoun? What is this Canada? Doublethink (talk) 05:06, 13 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree that these are wildly different circumstances, but I still disagree on the idea of compelled speech as a thing in the first place. Vlaming has the 5th Amendment right just like everybody else and still failed to justify keeping his job, so that's not even a juxtaposition of ideas.  I wasn't trained by my employer to perform child CPR, I was required to have documentation that I went to the health and safety council to do it.  I can say, I learned very little in that course, but I walked out with a sheet of paper that protected me from direct legal action if I met a reasonable standard, but it did not protect my employer, and it certainly didn't promise me my job.  Some of the most successful defenses are bland and entirely circumstantial.  Respectfully to the argument against my point, I maintain my own point that, on face value, the guy was most likely too shitty at his job to keep it. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:10, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * i'd leave this to alone as you dont want to continue, but you are fundementally wrong on a couple of points, and with just generally dickish behaviour with all sic here and the sic there. i dont care about typos and context usually makes things clear. im not submitting an academic paper andif its unclear ask for clarification.
 * Having calmed down somewhat I'd like to reiterate my previous point that yes, I agree that the school seems to have failed to do their due diligence in pleshing out the guidelines and rules and given the exact circumstances, i.e. student in peril, subconscious thought overriding conscious thought, he should have gotten a slap on the wrist. I just think his defense is kind of shitty. Rather than telling the court/authorities/what have you what happened, i.e. he acted in the heat of the moment, he has to bring up his religion and it's mandates. And those religious mandates are kind of crappy when compared to modern ethics. I'd like to also apologize to you personally for losing my temper in addition the my clarification. 15:04, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * the first point is that it is very much about respect and decency. i care not for the 'compelled speech' whatever legal merits it may have. its hiding behind legelese to excuse and rationalise shitty behaviour. (a frustratingly common occurance. you can legally justify doing something shitty - should you though?). it is not an oversimplication to say this about basic human decency and respect when thats exactly what its about. actively demeaning student? a figure of authority actively denies their identity each time they speak. that isnt actively demeaning? the suggested compromise? singles them out each time. not actively demeaning? you say this would be rare, would it though? the verbal gymnastics needed talking to other students,to this student, back again. maybe they could have pulled it off but why give it the chance. the school talks about it creating hostile learning environment, i would agree. racial slurs and insults would certainly be more brutal but the oversimplification is suggesting that this is all that counts as actively demeaning.
 * you mention the guidelines and how they are not up to muster, but so what. they are guidelines. they cant be all encompassing. he had ample opportunity to clarify and discuss what was expected. he did that and refused to comply. thats why he was sacked.
 * the point with 'he tried, failed/slipped up, we all make mistakes' he didnt try very hard nor was he fired for the one slip up. my source was the daily mail (i know, but it had the most info, the original cite was so lacking in context). i tried to make clear, perhaps failed, that this was not a one off incident, that it showed a pattern of behaviour lacking in the respect i keep harping on about and that he seemed very reluctant to make any kind effort to make any kind of compromise. his compromise, as you agree, was not very compromisey. talk of tolerance being a two street is just nonsense when you are talking about a position of authority over someone under their control? (not the right word, but will do) what would that look like here? the teacher respects the student by using the preferred pronoun, the student respects the teacher by what? allowing him to misgender him? this is not a case of a two way street.
 * and no we are not entitled to make judgements on the worth or validity of someone elses beliefs. not in the context i provided. you go to work anywhere and you put all that on hold. you meet your customers and their beliefs or your own cannot and should not influence your decisions in any way unless it is pertinent to the service you are providing. they should be treated with respect at all times. often times this will mean adapting your approach to the individual needs of the customer. (ive worked in the public sector - this is drummed into you) in the specific case, the teachers beliefs were not relevent to teaching french, and he was being asked to do so little and with so little effort to comply that he should not be in that job. vlaming the private individual is free to do and say he pleases. vlaming the teacher is not. he must consider the needs of his students and there is just no way what he was being asked to do was in anyway onerous or making unreasonable demands on his faith. that he thought so is not enough here AMassiveGay (talk) 05:15, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It's a pity that nobody tried to answer directly my previous post, I think that it would have prevented the conversation from running in circles. Maybe I should had give the good example first, so:
 * (1) It seems to me that the best legal precedent are names. If a teacher constantly call a student with a name different from his legal name (the name on the birth certificate), then there's ground for legal action. Therefore, each student should be referred, the with the pronoun that is in accord to his legal gender. If the student goes thought some gender transition, then he can also change his legal (name and) gender, and then the teacher should use the updated pronoun. In brief, the student can decide his preferred pronoun, but he has to do it through a legal process, and right now the possible pronouns are only "he, she".
 * (2) Misgendering is not always a form of abuse. If done by mistake, and occasionally, it should not be persecuted. If done consistently then the matter should be investigated, and eventually some action should be taken (not immediate firing).
 * (3) Nobody should be forced to use certain pronouns. Pronouns are substitutes for nouns, so if a teacher doesn't want to call a male-to-female transgender using "she", he can just use the student's name. If that becomes discriminatory, then the teacher should be questioned about, and I think that at that point he would have to call all students by names only, to avoid discriminations.
 * Thinker(unlicensed) 09:28, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * on the your first point, the student did transition and had changed their name. i dont know how things are in the us, but name changes do not confer a change in gender, no matter how traditionally fem or masc the name may be. some kind of legal process might, and i do stress might, be applicable if there were any such process. not a legal scholar in any way, nor fluent with american law, but as i understand it there are few places anywhere in the world where that kind legal status is an option. thats changing gradually, which is hopeful. as it stands, without that option its an impossible burden on anyone transitioning. im not sure on its usefulness here even if it were. transitioning is more of a process. taking gradual steps. finalising some kind legal process would a solid concrete step that chances are you going to want the pronoun thing sorted before that. its part of the process. if you mean more rules and regs with a college or such like, rather the full force of the state - yes and no. some guidelines or structure in place sure - safeguards all involved. some kind of formal process? no. thats too much of burden with the uncertainty and insecurities of kids at the best of times, its unnecessary and by its nature unfairly off putting. please remember this can never be a one size fits all approach.


 * the second point is, i would hope, self evident. of course it would insane and highly damaging for trans folk in general if misunderstandings resulted in firings. thats why places need comprehensive guidelines - they protect everyone. but they only going t work if we avoid the hysteria that we see sadly everywhere these days, where the most innocent innocuous phrase is taken as a hate crime or the most grievous and obvious abuse is defended as free speech and cries of oppression. this is not what happened in the above situation. that guy got a fair crack of the whip. there was dialogue and opportunity for clarity and to make a case. whatever his reasons, heartfelt or petty, he did not want to do what was reasonably required of him. no student deserves to put in the situation they were in by very place they must be allowed be and do the things are just so much more difficult elsewhere and other stages of life. i dont want to say safe space, its too loaded a word, but that essentially. there was no oppression here. no discrimination.  not on that teacher.


 * the third is something answered in much of what has already been said. it unfairly singles out a particular student with the exact effect as the misgendering in the first place. it is an entirely unrealistic prospect to achieve in anything but the most formal and stilted conversations. even more unrealistic to achieve with all students. you would need to scrub all such gendered references from the language entirely, and in french too - thats what was being taught in the discussed situation.


 * i just have no time for this argument. people compromise their beliefs all the time in big ways and in little ways, willingly, because its the best option. im not talking about private individuals, though yeh, everyone does it, but people employed in some job or another. no one stones their colleagues for taking the lords name in vain. no one denies a couple a mortgage because they work on the sabbath. it would be outrageous if they did. it would be similarly outrageous if you were expected as part of your job to defile graves or ensure a kosher shipment is loaded with pork. you might need to chat to hr if you were. few things in life are that clear cut. few of us will find our work has any bearing on our beliefs - you usually pretty much know what you are getting into before - you made the choice already. some jobs, teacher for instance, you will have choices, expected to make choices that fall outside known parameters. you have ask is this necessary for the completion of my duties, and can i be reasonably be asked to do this.


 * some jobs it is fundementally obvious it will clash with your beliefs, religious or political. its a given. you avoid them and you dont claim discrimination. meat is murder vegan is not going to work in abbatoir nor sue them for refused employment because they wouldnt handle meat or do anything in the process. it would be crazy. the case of this teacher, who deals with all kinds of people all the time - is this necessary for the completion of his duties = yes. he needs to talk to his students. he needs to ensure a safe and welcoming environment for students, ensure that needs and requirements are adequately met. different students different needs. a wheel chair bound student - access may be issue. a trans student - this case involves pronouns. Can he be reasonably expected to be asked to do this? again yes. the key word here is reasonably.


 * whose needs a more important here, and who suffers the most when needs are met or they are not? for me this clear. correct pronouns can be integral to trans identity. its how others see you, it shows there is some respect, even if grudging, for the choices made, challenges they face that most of us wont have to. the teacher? what does he lose? what harm is done to him? if we take him at his word that his religious convictions on this matter are sincere, are so strong, quote me stricture, show a sermon from his church, anything, that tells me the preferred pronouns are most definitely a line we shall not cross. there is nothing in the article nor i suspect anywhere else. perhaps an instruction from the pulpit for some activists. a different kettle of fish.


 * it is necessary for his job and it is reasonable to ask this of him. its a judgement call, student or teacher. i say student. the school said student. the teacher didnt, refused to comply, was fired. if there is discrimination here its the lesser of two evils. the student would have suffered more deeply, there were no other options. there was no concessions the student could have reasonably made. the teacher had a choice, and he chose this martyrdom AMassiveGay (talk) 15:48, 13 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Could you please use capital letters? Besides orthography, I don't have a very good sight and capital letters help me to understand when a sentence has ended and a new sentence starts. If you write everything in lowercase then to me it's really difficult to read.
 * "if you mean more rules and regs with a college or such like, rather the full force of the state - yes and no. some guidelines or structure in place sure - safeguards all involved. some kind of formal process? no. thats too much of burden with the uncertainty and insecurities of kids at the best of times, its unnecessary and by its nature unfairly off putting." I sincerely don't understand what you mean. My point is really simple: students shouldn't be called by pronouns that don't match their legal gender. In US there are processes to change their gender on the IDs (From Wikipedia: "Most states permit the name and sex to be changed on a birth certificate, either through amending the existing birth certificate or by issuing a new one, but some of these states require medical proof of sex reassignment surgery before they will change the birth certificate.") If a student doesn't want to be called by a name or pronoun that match his legal name/gender, then the teacher may or may not accept to do that.
 * "there was dialogue and opportunity for clarity and to make a case. whatever his reasons, heartfelt or petty, he did not want to do what was reasonably required of him." It doesn't see to me that there was much dialogue, the teacher was asked to do something, he proposed an alternative and he was fired.
 * About you replied to the third point, it's simply too long and confused. I don't mean that in an insulting way: if you want to make effective arguments/have a conversation, then try to be briefer and clearer, otherwise it's a soliloquy.
 * Thinker(unlicensed) 16:48, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * "the teacher was asked to do something, he proposed an alternative and he was fired" - when you put it like that, it sounds like something that commonly happens everywhere else and nobody cares: employee is asked to do something, employee refuses and offers alternative, employee is fired for not doing what is required. 189.69.25.167 (talk) 19:45, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I wrote that to illustrate that there was no dialogue, contrary to what AMassiveGay said. I agree that many workplace situations go as "employee is asked to do something, employee... etc." but (without further information) that means nothing. An employee can refuse to do certain things, cannot refuse to do other things... and the employer can or cannot fire the employee under certain circumstances. Thinker(unlicensed) 20:15, 13 December 2018 (UTC)


 * i apologise for format, and capitalisation and what not, but i really cant help much there. for a variety of reasons this is the best you gonna get. the sprawling mass is not intentional, but the questions you ask have answers that just arnt simple. believe me, its as brief as i can manage. they are questions ive answered elsewhere and i seem to add more context each time. it does seem necessary to me. i'll try to add some white space to break it up and make easier to digest.


 * your first point -i feel ive answered this the best i can, i have little to more to add and the added context you give with reassignment surgery make my case even firmer. it would be an onerous and unnecessary burden and be unfair to expect of anyone even without the prospect of surgery, but with? that is just insane. its neither the end goal for many or indeed most trans people, a step far beyond many peoples desire or means. it requires counselling, living as the desired gender for a minimum period of time, and the financial cost is prohibitive for many. and you cannot walk that surgery back. there is a case and a need for legal recognition of status, with or without surgery. its for access of services and all the legalities of that. the student and teacher we are discussing is not that case. this is something thats encountered at the start of things, from when you first go public so to speak, and you want it dealt with pretty sharpish. without trivialising the importance of pronouns to trans people, to this student specifically, it is trivial for the teacher, no matter how much indignation he musters. yes he does have to respect the students identity with the preferred pronouns. as a representative of his school, thats part of his job. i can elaborate, but thats in the previous mass of text.


 * you second point - there was no dialogue - this is just false. i gave examples elsewhere of what happened and when asked, i gave my source. from the daily mail of all places, but free of their usual bile and more colour than the original cite. it paints a picture of direct refusals from the outset, the students reaction and effects this had, talks with the parents feeling belittled, talks with other staff where the teacher states his displeasure with students new identity. even without all of that, no dialogue is still false. its clear the thing with running into a wall is a culmination of other factors, of a festering situation talks with other staff are mentioned, just not elaborated on. it was a four hour meeting. plenty of time to thrash out something to work with, plenty of time to clarify policy and guidelines. his compromise was unworkable, and would have the same result as misgendering in the first place. it was no compromise at all. there was no compromise to be had. this was the one small thing that was asked of him, and he could not, would not do it. this is why he was sacked.


 * this brings me to my third point quite nicely. please try to get through what i wrote. i'll try make it easier to digest, but it does contain what i think is important context. i cant promise coherence, i believe it is more or less, but im not the best judge at present. i give a basic as i can summary here.


 * the third point, your original question and my reply, basically boils to whose rights do we trample here? with no acceptable compromise available, its a judgement call as to who gets their desired outcome. i go into some detail above about this, i will spare you what i can here. its student vs teacher. i say the student gets the right to the preferred pronouns. i say this because as teacher in a school, you go into a school knowing full well that compromises on your politics and religious views will be expected from time to time. its true of any profession, but particularly teaching were you deal with diverse groups of people and diverse opinions. more so, as you would expect much regulation to ensure against discrimination, and discrimination of children no less. if its reasonable to ask for a such compromise for the performance of your duties, that theres no way round it, and its not really so onerous, you make that compromise for the greater good. the effects of pronouns and misgendering on a student transitioning at a formative time in there life can be profound. this is the greater good here. the effects of compelling a teacher, a figure of authority, not vlaming the private individual, but vlaming the teacher, representitive of his school are trivial. he says sincere beliefs, that he cannot in good conscience, yield. ive no reason to doubt it, but no reason to believe its not just irritation and curmudgeonly grumpiness. he gives the most vaguest of rationale. give me some scripture, a sermon from his church, anything to suggest this is a line he cannot cross and we've no right to ask it. there is nothing in the articles and i suspect any legal argument will be contrived after the fact. it should have been such a minor thing for him, at best an irritation quickly accepted. he ultimately lost his job, but that has ultimately been his choice. its so clear cut to me i am astounded that there is any support for his case at all, beyond who you would usually expect. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:21, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

It should be so that if you misgender someone once, no punishment. Twice, you get a fine. Three times and you get arrested or executed. 49.197.129.130 (talk) 11:48, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Context can play a part - eg 'in a potential emergency situation speaking to persons who do not know the child/young adult'; and we never hear of the teachers who get into the habit of referring to '#that# kid, or where some mutually acceptable compromise is reached (which is not reported in the media) - and ditto for other contexts. (And there are often other aspects to such stories that are not reported.)
 * We have probably all been in equivalent situations - and there are many possible responses depending upon the circumstances. Anna Livia (talk) 13:38, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hyperbole is fun, though. But the more we suss out our personal conditions for criminality, the less likely we wind up with a three strike rule.  The internet has been hugely effective in demanding context for judgements, as I'm sure the Old Testament was at some point.  1 Timothy 5:18 calls back (libelously) to Deuteronomy 25:4, it's my favorite Bible thing.
 * But to the point, asking somebody to do their job, rather than owning them as a slave, and firing somebody for refusing to do their job, as opposed to considering them an infidel of some other belief set, seems reasonable. This compelled speech idea doesn't rely on relevant one-to-ones. So, what is the relevance of this person's faith and refusal to perform guardianship in comparison to the duties of his job?  The easy answer is, he can't keep his job if he REFUSES to do the tasks.  If he considers himself unable to perform all tasks, he also does not get to keep his job by virtue of being unable.  Occam's Razor.Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:31, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Anyone have any good trip reports?
From potent hallucinogenics be they LSD, Shrooms, datura, ket, salvia or DMT. Free Bobby shmurda. 49.197.129.130 (talk) 12:04, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I have a *bad* trip report, anyone read the Book of Revelations? Ɖøn Ĵuan (talk) 12:07, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * had. Thinker(unlicensed) 12:13, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Tried to read the bible on my first ever trip (was sold as LSD but turned out to be some strange compound of various obscure RC dissos and phenethylamines; all this in combination with smoking super potent hash every 15 minutes). Was not a good time, ended up spending several hours constantly blabbering complete nonsense about god taking me to other dimensions and the end of the universe. 49.197.129.130 (talk) 12:17, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * So if you take weird drugs you turn into a Jehovah's Witness? Cool. 12:29, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I once tripped so bad that I started beating my couch, thinking that it was a dragon. I ended up throwing a hatchet at it. Not a good time, if I may say so myself. Ɖøn Ĵuan (talk) 12:35, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * i am always a little suspicious of tales of trips, or at least the kind of representation of such things you get on the telly, second only to dream sequences for laziest plot device. i might be just jealous as my most out there trip little was more than lamp shades that were breathing. even my dreams, the ones i remember at least are horrifically mundane (seriously horrific - i once had to leave a job over repeated dreams of excel. they were like nightmares that were not fear inducing, just really really boring). doors of perception my arse AMassiveGay (talk) 16:19, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * What I experienced was only one bad trip, and suffice it to say I`m leaving a lot of details out.... but I understand your skepticism, it's always better to be skeptical than to be gullible after all. Most other trips I've had were relatively mundane, although that last one convinced me to stop abusing drugs entirely. "Enlightenment" my ass. Ɖøn Ĵuan (talk) 17:41, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Acid is very powerful and halucibations are common and very absurd and vivid. If someone tells about a bad trip...its likely mostly true. The one time I took it I enjoyed it slightly and then regretted it. Went to my room and stayed inside convincing myself the police weren't coming to get me. The walls were melting (everything was melting). Putting the lights off made the halucinations worse. I had recently watched "The Ring" and that was a source of scarry imagery I suffered. All I wanted to do was fall asleep but my heart beat was fast and hard. My hallucinations were not as bad as others have discribed, they were too exaggerated to take as "real" but they were still very scary. I started to feel a pressure growing in my head and I felt if I didn't do something my head would pop. So I kept myself occupied doing a lot of things all at once...playing Nintendo...looking at a comic...radio in the background...petting my dog...repeating a mantra over and over etc. After several hours...exhausted and stressed...I fell asleep. My friends however had a great time on LSD that night. Its not for everyone and a bad trip can be very traumatising. Shabi  DOO  18:03, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * i do not mean to imply any of the above is untrue nor even exaggerated. when i say suspicious i dont mean bullshit. but a pinch of salt is recommended with such a subject. i'm sure you are all trust worthy fellows, but drug people? not so much. you cannot trust a description of their breakfast, let alone of tripping balls. and, oh the stories of the time i nearly died - everyone has one. the few times ive tried lsd were mostly underwhelming trip wise, but mostly fun. i wouldnt do it now - people would die. the hallucinations i get from other drugs on a more regular basis are of monotone patterns that you know are not there and indecipherable writing. they so mundane that you do not always clock it as a hallucination. i guess thats the point really. from the compulsiveness, psychosis, and psychotic breaks you experience with the likes of amphetamines and disassociatives, you might believe you actually are talking to god when in fact you are merely dribbling on the sofa. you cant trust yourself let alone others. dont do drugs fellas. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:44, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah I get what you are saying. Perhaps a sliver of some people's stories are overratted. Though I've seen a friend having such a bad trip she really thought she was dying. My only other bad trip was when I smoked some weed which unknown to me was laced with some amphetamine. I really felt I was going to have a heart attack if I didn't lie down and do some relaxation exercises (though I knew I wasn't actually going to have a heart attack, the paranoia of it and the bashing of my heart made me feel otherwise). It's true, some of the stuff they say that they did while high was just a hallucination or a drug-dream. Or creative memory-loss and yeah, some people make up stuff or just lie. That being said, if you grow your own marijuana and smoke it in moderation or if you cultivate your own mushrooms and take it very much in moderation...there's no reason not to do it if it's legal (or you really feel you'll never get caught) and if you don't have certain physical or mental problems. If you say "don't do marijuana", then you should definitely say "don't drink alcohol" before that. Shabi  DOO  12:12, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * tis funny because i dont drink. i make i point of stating it as sanctimoniously as possible leaving out my other vices. think on reflection, i think its just the more positive accounts that make me suspect exaggeration. the people i meet are just fundementally unreliable. you'd think they grant magical powers when you here some people talk about them. yeh bad trip can be very unpleasant. have you ever smoked spice thinking it was weed? holy shit that stuff will wreck you. i tried some when it were still legal thinking 'its legal, its gonna be wank'. that was a mistake. a little bit later a friend did the same thing and had to get someone to a and e. i laughed at him, but it was probably the correct course. im not sure exactly what set of circumstances would convince to call an ambulance after a bad trip - or to call one someone else for that matter. the drug in play would inform that i guess.
 * the all things in moderation - that used to be my mantra. its fine until its not in moderation, then its not so easy to maintain. somethings just do not lend themselves to it, and tend to whittle down willpower and self control, and the lines you said will not cross have been crossed.
 * i say dont do drugs, but if you do, know what it you are going to be doing, know which ones you can over dose, what not to mix and more importantly, if there is one thing you can glean from this, if nothing else its this - cocaine is for arseholes. never forget. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:53, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I blew my mind out on LSD in 1969, that's why I'm so fucked up today. (Kiddies, look at me and see yourself in a few more years). And you know what, it was the goddam CIA making the shit, and goddam corrupt cops selling it to us (this was in the pre-asset forfeiture era). nobspiss in my ear 03:35, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I've never gone beyond drinks with some of the compound weed has or a large energy shot at once -I still remember the palpitations that shit gave me-, but to have a trip is one of these things I want to experiment before going black. Giving my love for astronomy and my liking of science-fiction and fantasy, sure it would really be a trip. Panzerfaust (talk) 08:45, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Saturnalia
'Tis December 17, the start of the Saturnalia festivities. As per the tradition of role reversal, I say we revoke the mods' powers and give them to everyone else. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 17:53, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * YES!! Ɖøn Ĵuan (talk) 18:31, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The mods have powers? Wow.  I did not know that.


 * So, which of them can fly, which can lift a Toyota over their heads, and which can shoot lasers from their eyes (or less savory body parts, knowing this crowd?) Kencolt (talk) 21:53, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * yay I shall finally learn what it's like to have moderation in my life its a dream come true 24.120.253.250 (talk) 00:37, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You can start by following the Eighth-Fold Path. — Ɖøn Ĵuan   Harass  23:10, 20 December 2018 (UTC)