RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive376

Turning conspiracy theory talking points into a drinking game!
Every time the New World Order is mentioned- take a drink of beer

Every time the Anti-Christ is mentioned- Take a shot of Whiskey

Every time Obama is blamed- take a shot of Sake

Perfect drinking game. --Channel 48 WDEM-TV3 (talk) 00:24, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * But then we'd die of alcohol poisoning, just like They want us to!CoryUsar (talk) 00:39, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Fun bit of trivia, the word "sake" (though it's usually said "osake", written お酒) in Japanese is the generic word for alcohol. Their word for what we call sake is, depending on your transliteration, "nihonshū" or "nihonshuu"; the kanji for it is 日本酒, literally "Japan alcohol". And contrary to popular belief, the process of making sake is much closer to beer than wine. It's a strange drink, though, you either have to get the really cheap or really nice brands; the cheap stuff is what you warm or use in a shogun, the good ones are excellent on their own. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい ) 02:06, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * And every time a religious nutjob prays for 100% of all public offices from Alabama to Washington State to be won by Republicans (because the only ways that Dems ever win anything is because of voter fraud; supporting democracy is FRAUDULENT, and undermining it is PATRIOTIC AND MACHISMO-Y), drink as well. I'd participate, but I'm not 21 yet. Also, nowadays so many people are divorced from reality that my poor liver just wouldn't be able to take the abuse. -- Goatspeed. 06:09, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Fun:Conspiracy Talking Point Drinking Game --Channel 48 WDEM-TV3 (talk) 15:38, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Mithering
Is this a good word for describing Donald Trump? Anna Livia (talk) 17:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. 17:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * whats wrong with 'twat' for describing trump? AMassiveGay (talk) 18:14, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * A blithering mitherer. Bongolian (talk) 18:36, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * How about this: -- Goatspeed.
 * AMassiveGay - mithering rhymes with slithering etc, and has appropriate definitions.
 * There is also this word. Anna Livia (talk) 23:47, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Only ever heard mithering used with the long i ("eye"), and never by anyone south of Sheffield. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 23:59, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * after all this time i am surprised no one has mentioned trumping means farting. AMassiveGay (talk) 00:05, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it never took off as a Trump-related insult because it was mainly employed as a semi-polite euphemism. Not much invective oomph as a result. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 00:34, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Helena Bonham Carter - if one has only read the word, and comes from the M25 English pronunciation region then the words rhyme. Anna Livia (talk) 20:37, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, but you'd get some seriously blank looks if you used it in conversation with the short i sound. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 21:23, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "Trump is the nacho"? No, that makes him sound good. 20:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Murder apologia
American Patriot speaks out about his justified use of force against violent criminals.


 * -- Goatspeed. 23:44, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Can one day go by without far right trolls posting stupid shit? Guess that will probably never happen. --Channel 48 WDEM-TV3 (talk) 00:25, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Three things. First, if you think that's a troll, why do you think you can infer political leanings from what they post? Second, if you think that's a troll, why feed the troll with an apoplectic rant? Third, if you think that's "far right" "nonsense" do you think hiding it without a rebuttal makes it look wrong to onlookers? The good fight may be tedious, but if you want to claim victory, you really do need to fight it first. We've come a long ways from the Conservapedia days, but I'd have hoped that was obvious. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 03:28, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh look, they're trying to justify murder now. Give them time, and they'll try to justify genocide. 04:05, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Who's "they"? 192․168․1․42 (talk) 04:29, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * They are they. Revolverman (talk) 04:54, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Naturally. But 2001:8003:59db:4100:c932:e6f6:e790:7997 wasn't doing that, nor was the linked article, so it's not clear who GrammarCommie was referring to. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 05:30, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Far right trolls defending murder is just nuts. There is no way to defend the murderer. --Channel 48 WDEM-TV3 (talk) 20:11, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah he was. That Daily Wire article is murder apologia. I've seen the video, the victims were unarmed, it was murder, and concern trolling will get you nowhere. 21:45, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * “Yeah he was” 2001:8003:59db:4100:c932:e6f6:e790:7997 posted a section title and link suggesting that the incident was justified self defense, not murder. That is rather a different sort of thing than claiming that murder is OK, which is what “justifying murder” or “murder apologia” would actually involve. Killing in self defense is not murder by either legal or moral standards.
 * “That Daily Wire article is murder apologia.” The article mentions that Rittenhouse has been charged with first-degree murder among other charges, and relays parts of a recent interview, with the article written on the occasion of his making bail. It then talks about Rosenbaum. The editorial slant is that Rittenhouse killed Rosenbaum in self defense, not that Rittenhouse murdered Rosenbaum, and that that’s fine. You could certainly take issue with the presentation of Rosenbaum as someone that people might reasonably have to defend themselves from since that is unrelated to the pertinant facts of the case.
 * “I've seen the video, the victims were unarmed” You’re not the only one who’s seen it, and quite a few people have looked more closely than you have. In this analysis, for example, the part starting at 22 minutes clearly shows one person kicking Rittenhouse (a shod foot used to kick someone on the ground is often legally considered a dangerous weapon because it can inflict serious injury), one person hitting him with a skateboard (a bludgeon), and one person charging him with a gun in hand. And if you care to watch the whole video, you’ll see that Rittenhouse wasn’t the one who shot first in the incident. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 13:38, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Nick Land
We should do an article on a pompous nazi "philosopher" named Nick Land. Look him up. HairlessCat (talk) 15:17, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Given the topic name, I was hoping for a Nickelodeon Theme Park. This is a bigger disappointment than when I went to the Barbie museum only to find out it was dedicated to Klaus Barbie. CoryUsar (talk) 15:34, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Should teach him how to stop being such a fearful and hateful sadomasochist obsessed with big daddy fascism/racism. HairlessCat (talk) 16:50, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Land is legit philosopher. He just also has insane political views as well. 21:41, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * How is he a legit philosopher? It just seems like sci-fi artificial intelligence posthuman Matrix stuff mixed with his ethnostate white supremacist garbage. HairlessCat (talk) 01:35, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * HairlessCat (talk) 02:56, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * He used to lecture in philosophy courses back in the late 1980s, which implies he has a degree in that subject. Then from what I know of him he lost his shit and became a neo-reactionary, more or less helping to kickstart that entire trend. Also, Nozick is considered a serious philosopher, and he literally just spouted libertarian nonsense for most of his career. 14:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The neoreactionary page says he sort of lost his mind from amphetamine psychosis. HairlessCat (talk) 15:13, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Possibly, I don't know the details of Land's break from reality. 18:07, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Get fucked Donnie
After Michigan confirmed that Biden won the state, the US Government Services Administration has finally signed off on allowing Biden access to presidential transition resources. 00:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Doubt that Traitor-in Chief will stop his petty fight. Either way, another nail in the coffin for this dispute. --Channel 48 WDEM-TV3 (talk) 01:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I'll bet that BoN whose bullshit I keep having to collapse/ never puts in links like that. I'd like to see him/her/them/it try and explain this one away. (But then again, people like them are so far divorced from reality at this point that they'd probably just claim it's fAyK nOoZ. -- Goatspeed.  03:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Woot! Twodots (talk) 17:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Meme
https://imgur.com/gallery/4zAjN 05:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That is shit. That is absolutely fucking shit. The "What the left think I do" and the "What the right think I do" both dhow somebody happily writing. What the fuck's that meant to mean? It's not funny. It's not clever. It's not insulting. It's not anything that any RationalWiki editor would want to share. It's not something that any of our enemies would want to share. How is it even a fucking meme? I wasted some 50 seconds of my life looking at that and trying to make sense of it. It's obviously a very badly edited "Wikipedia editor" meme. and it's absolutely fucking shit! Spud (talk) 12:08, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn’t make it. It’s just the first meme I found after search “RationalWiki” on Google that did not cry about the name being rational. 12:11, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If I thought you'd made it, I wouldn't have been so cruel about it. I didn't. Just like I didn't think you'd made any of those weird and stupid videos with "RationalWiki" in the titles that you posted here earlier this year. But the fact remains that it's shit. And, you know what, I'm sure a lot of our clever users could take the same text and make something much better and funnier. Spud (talk) 12:38, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * A couple notes: A) Only one image (not this one) in this person's gallery got over 1K views, so this is of 0 importance; B) This was posted in 2017, along with a whole bunch of other "edgey" anti-left type memes and a bunch of gamer memes (perhaps showing what we all knew, how Gamergate fueled the alt-right); C) The last image posted in 2018 (under the title "bigot") is an anti-Donald Trump joke. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Maybe this person just was going through an edgelord phase. 72.184.174.199 (talk) 15:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Petition to replace the blank white canvas of the saloon bar header with this...


06:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I have a better idea: Put that on top of our "pissed at us" page. -- Goatspeed. 06:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Having that as the background would create text over text: one or the other or both would be hard to read. Bongolian (talk) 18:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

How to get a random article that is included in 2 categories?
Help 12:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Stickhopper or whatever his name is
Very interesting.
 * This kids, is a textbook case of psychological projection. Also, more lameass shitposting. 22:04, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Developments in the 2020 nightmare election results and the Trump lawsuits
https://news.yahoo.com/election-2020-live-updates-georgia-125808339.html

Besides this whole ordeal being fertile ground for the South Park writers, Trump's hyper-limited "path to victory" has pretty much closed completely. Also Trump ended his lawsuit here in Michigan. --Channel 48 WDEM-TV3 (talk) 18:39, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Did you see any of the Giuliani press conference? Guy was sweating so hard his hair dye ran. I feel sorry for him, watching him hitch his cart to Trump’s wagon has been depressing. From “It is impossible that the whistle-blower is a hero and I’m not. And I will be the hero! These morons—when this is over, I will be the hero…” to the attempted bombshell Four Seasons press conference which reporters left early to his recent power grab within the Trump campaign to today’s demand that the media take him seriously and believe that his allegations of voter fraud weren’t fantasy… you just want him to tap out at this point. This was “America’s Mayor,” and his ambition is driving him to stay in the spotlight even as age takes its inevitable toll. It’s scary to watch, scary to imagine whatever drives you becoming the jagged edge of dementia, warping you into a caricature of yourself. And he’s got a national if not global audience for this! Maybe that's all he wants. Artificius (talk) 20:54, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I just read a break-down of the bullshit they spewed, two things are just fucking hysterical:
 * Sidney Powell said that Hugo Chavez financially supported stealing this election, which besides being dead, requires such incredible mental gymnastics, it should be awarded with an Olympic gold medal.
 * This server being captured in Germany. The company denies it has a German office, the Army denies it was involved in any operation, and apparently it will show Trump flipped California. I'm convinced these imbeciles don't understand how the internet works, and believe that the evidence for every single evil thing in the world is just out there somewhere, on a European server. It makes the Trump-Ukraine Scandal look benign.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 00:44, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, the Trump team is playing the game of running out the clock, and the Michigan and Pennsylvania, maybe even Georgia too, electoral certifications won't be made on time.
 * The Michigan suit that was withdrawn was over the Wayne County canvassers who rescinded their decision to rescind not certifying. So it's not a big deal.
 * Georgia, in the meantime, is developing big problems similar to PA that threaten it certification deadline.
 * And the Wisconsin Election Board is off on the wrong foot with a series of fuck ups.
 * Arizona and Nevada are hardly worth discussing right now; how does tiny Nevada take weeks to count ballots that Florida, the 3rd largest state, accomplished in one night?
 * Oh, and Arizona will not certify either til all lawsuits are settled.
 * If I were team Biden, I'd seriously begin looking at Plan B. nobsHell to the Thief! 01:25, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * What a load of drivel. Trump's suits have been thrown out for being of such low quality that it's made professional lawyers wonder who the fuck Trump has representing his cases. These suits are not only bound to fail, but are of such low quality that it would be laughable if he wasn't trying to undermine the election results. People like Nobs say they believe in democratic republicanism, but that's bull. They believe in seizing power by any means possible. 01:58, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I mean Giuliani's hair was melting on his rat face from all the lies he was spewing during his press conference today. How can anyone take anything coming from the Trump campaign seriously anymore is one of life's great mysteries. 02:04, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * GC, well that's what Appeals courts, federal courts, and the Supreme Court are for, and how you run out the clock. nobsHell to the Thief! 02:09, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Pennsylvania, for example, cannot be certified. It violated the same equal protection clause as re-itereated in Bush v. Gore. So subtract 20 electoral votes from the number of electors who will meet when the Electoral College meets. nobsHell to the Thief! 02:13, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No. They're for actual crimes and infractions, not overgrown children throwing a tantrum. Rob, Pennsylvania was thrown out BECAUSE THEY ADMITTED TO HAVING CAMPAIGN POLL WATCHERS IN THE FUCKING ROOM. THEY LITERALLY ADMITTED UNDER OATH THAT THEIR PUBLIC CLAIMS WERE HORSESHIT, YOU FUCKING DISHONEST PIECE OF SHIT. 02:18, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Calm the fuck down GC, nobs is nothing to get that excited about. Is your Caps Lock broken maybe? 02:27, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed, no need for all caps. In the real world, Georgia just confirmed that Biden won the recount today. Yet another judge dismissed yet another attempt to stop the certification with amusingly forceful language. Trump is basically at the Jacob Wohl stage of throwing shit at everything and seeing what sticks. (I do recommend that nobs restrict his diet of conservative news media that seems to feed the bullshit in his head. Conservative news media has potential serious side effects, such as addiction to posting excessive nonsensical babbling about QAnon on 8Kun.) 72.184.174.199 (talk) 02:36, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * A dismissal is good; that ratchets it up to the Appeals court. And the Pennsylvania equal protection violations of voting standards are not related to the vote countiong fiasco. nobsHell to the Thief! 02:43, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Pipe down, you. States aren't required to delay certification because of crazy Rudy's poop-flinging monkey act. If they've determined that their electoral processes were sound, and that any pending litigation is meritless, then they can fire at will. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 03:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Well, gaw-aw-aw-leee, MI, GA, and PA have all certified. ProTip: Running out the clock only works when you're ahead. Zontar (talk) 09:42, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Cope harder nobs. CaptainCrackRock (talk) 15:25, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * As much as I love shitting on nobs for how pathetically stupid he is, we should also shit on him for being a traitor to the constitution. Essentially what nobs is endorsing an electoral coup, against the will of the people.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 16:58, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * What nobs and the other Trumpies want is so treasonous that it makes Benedict Arnold look like a patriot. --Channel 48 WDEM-TV3 (talk) 17:33, 20 November 2020 (UTC)


 * And yet nobs and his buddies have the gall to write about how we liberal atheists are the "unpatriotic" ones. They have now lost any remaining "moral high ground" over us. -- Goatspeed. 20:06, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I fucking love democracy. Twodots (talk) 20:33, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

"the most extensive and inclusive VOTER FRAUD organization in the history of American politics"
[https://twitter.com/SteveGuest/status/1320107370312323073 So how do you all explain Joe Biden saying "the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics"? Any takers?] &mdash; Unsigned, by: 2001:8003:59DB:4100:8D00:573:1E21:6F90 / talk
 * BoN, I don't know if you will read this in full, but I'll write it here nonetheless, since I have a day off work... Are you feeling fine? No no, don't roll your eyes at your screen, I'm not being snarky. It's rare that a day goes by when you don't come along to post something here in the Saloon Bar. Why? Out of all the things you could be doing, like reading a book, playing a game, watching a movie or going for a run, why in the name of God do you feel the need to sit down, find some random link and post it here? It just seems... boring to me. The act is not visually engaging. It doesn't make a pleasant sound when you hit that "save" button. Nobody here ACTUALLY cares. Oh, some of my mates will look and roll their eyes, but of the dozens of people who will see your material 99.9% won't even stop for a second to glance at your stuff.


 * Now you are thinking to yourself: "But, but I made you guys ANGRY! Isn't that fun?!" Well, nobody is angry. We just feel mildly sad... "AHA! So I did trigger you snowflakes!" No my friend, we don't feel sad because we were "destroyed" by your logic and irrefutable high quality sources. We feel sad because every time you post here we are reminded that there is someone out there in this world who is feeling alone and angry and that there is nothing we can do to help them. EVERY TIME I see one of your posts I feel like I have let you down stranger, because maybe there was something that I could have done to help you. Something to cheer you up in your boredom or your sadness; something to alleviate the crushing sense of loneliness and despair you are feeling every time you sit down in front of your computer to troll others. I look out my window and see the people right now, smoking with their friends, kissing their girlfriends, walking their dogs, taking their kids to school, and I know that you aren't one of those people pal, I know you aren't. Because if you did have friends who wanted to be near you, or a person who loved you, children you needed to care of or just someplace fun to be, then the idea of trolling others on a wiki nobody reads wouldn't have been anywhere near the top of your to do list.


 * I'm sorry I couldn't help you. I'm so sorry. And I know that you probably hate me right now; but I don't hate you back. Maybe at another time I would, but I just can't find it in me right now.


 * Good luck. - Rairyu75  ( Talk ) 11:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You should make a template out of that... 12:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, totally. Twodots (talk) 17:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

But also here you go - https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-fact-check-biden-voter-protection-not-idUSKBN27E2VH Aloysius the Gaul 21:38, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "78 year old man with a history of misspeaking, misspeaks". There I fixed the headline.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 00:09, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, imagine being surprised when Joe Biden messes words up. I’m no Biden-hater, but even I know that he usually can’t speak right to save his life. 00:42, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Also - despite Joe telling you where to go, the might of the US investigative system and the GOP election-overthrowing machinery can't find any fucking evidence of voter fraud at all!! Except this.... and this..... and these, and there's this from a while ago, and this.... building a picture here..... and it ain't Biden voters in it much!  Aloysius the Gaul 02:20, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

NO
is truly disappointing. HairlessCat (talk) 13:13, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Like I said, I was not mad about the poll. I thought there was a different motive. Ugh. --Channel 48 WDEM-TV3 (talk) 13:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I prefer a goat. 13:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm one of the people who voted for "That user is terrible and should feel terrible". Because I am and I should. 13:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I personally think that RationalZombie94 deserves another chance. Perhaps we can start another poll and find out that there is nothing but love here for him. What d'yall say? Shabi  DOO  14:11, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * What the fuck is going on with these polls.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 00:13, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I made a poll earlier that conclusively proved that the polls on this site are a HOAX 00:39, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Something stupid, I`m sure. — Oxyaena Harass  03:58, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanksgiving is upon us!
For those of you who live in the US, Thanksgiving is coming. Knowing COVID is an issue, will you follow public health guidelines and care about your fellow man or be an inconsiderate asshole, spread the virus while screaming "muh freewdom and scamdemic"? --Channel 48 WDEM-TV3 (talk) 16:48, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The time to kill dozens without being aware of it, time it is. 104.225.183.70 (talk) 17:24, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The public's answer:
 * Millions traveling for Thanksgiving despite surging Covid-19 cases
 * A birthday lunch left 15 Texas relatives battling covid-19: ‘Please don’t be like my family’
 * Hospitals are going to be overwhelmed. Bongolian (talk) 18:35, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * So will the turkeys view Thanksgiving 2020 as "Revenge Day"?
 * It's interesting, the total deaths/day are still less than in April, but that's because we are better at treating COVID now. The estimate is that COVID now only kills as few as .15% of the infected, which is about the same as the season flu... assuming they get proper medical care.  And if everyone gets sick at the same time, they won't get proper care, and COVID's death rate will skyrocket into the whole percentage point territory.  It's important that we control the spread as much as we can, especially considering that we know a vaccine is just a few weeks away. CoryUsar (talk) 19:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Getting a bunch of people sick with a horrible disease is pretty consistent with the Thanksgiving occasion, I'd say. 19:54, 24 November 2020 (UTC)


 * And make sure to hoard buy toilet paper before the Karens grab all of it. -- Goatspeed. 21:11, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That is why Americans really should start using bidets. CoryUsar (talk) 22:26, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Many people have said before that they hate their relatives so maybe they want go give their family the virus. There are always jokes about people hating their relatives. Fun fact: I could pull a conspiracy out of my ass pertaining to this. It would be pretty easy. Hell, my brother could be the one to sell people the conspiracy. He could sell sand to someone in the desert. --Channel 48 WDEM-TV3 (talk) 22:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Your brother sounds cool. Twodots (talk) 23:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Not particularly impressive, considering that Australia already figured out how to sell sand to Saudi Arabia.CoryUsar (talk) 01:00, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Books
These are just some suggestions of reading material for bored bookworms.
 * We are Legion; We are Bob

A severed head clones itself and saves the human race 2-3 times. Excellent read for sci-fi fans, I would definitely suggest it.
 * Congo

An older book, by Michael Crichton. Fascinating thriller. Fear the ape.
 * Bone

An outwardly comical book, which quickly transforms into a mysterious quest involving queens, locusts, and monsters. A good read. Note: It's a graphic novel.
 * XKCD: What If?

A hilarious and well-made collection of bizarre questions, answered with science and stick figures. Great for XKCD fans and newbies alike.
 * Hope you guys like em', if you choose to read any.Twodots (talk) 18:06, 21 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I've heard of Bone. My brother used to love reading it when we were younger. -- Goatspeed. 19:05, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I have XKCD: What If, and I can tell you it's a great book. Even if you're unimpressed by the normal comics, this one is above and beyond for anyone with scientific interests. IveBeenFrank (talk) 19:12, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You could try the books The Expanse is based on. Though fair warning; Drummer was created for the show, and in spite of being the most badass battle-bitch in the solar system (fuck you worthless legs, I'm building a fucking mech suit!), she isn't in the books.  Plus, Ashford is a much, much better character in the show, being a badass space pirate who's matured quite a bit since his youth and has very good reasons for what he does.  Not a fan of Holden, but that's because I feel like the show shouldn't have a main protagonist. CoryUsar (talk) 21:13, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh goat I love The Expanse. -- Goatspeed. 06:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, can hardly wait for mid-December when season 5 comes out. I skimmed the summaries of the books, I know I know now it's not too much of a surprise, but I'm not sure how they will handle the later seasons.  There's a 30 year time skip at some much later point in the books (was that a spoiler?  I don't think that's a spoiler), and I don't know how they plan to age the actors much.  Maybe let the actors go without makeup and just handwave the whole thing as future-tech which keeps people sexy until their late 130s?  Just change the timeskip to 5 years instead?  Diverge from the books and create some filler seasons to cover the years between?  CoryUsar (talk) 06:58, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

That's cool and all, but ya'll need to to read the Bobiverse trilogy ASAP. Twodots (talk) 19:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The works of Terry Pratchett. That is all. Kencolt (talk) 00:05, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * city of night john rechy is the last book i read and i highly recommend it. i stress ive never been a rent boy nor a client but i recognise enough elements of the world depicted in my own lived experience that its kind life affirming. im kind of fringe and its not often that i see depictions of lives and worlds that are relatable to my own. it can be lonely and isolating on the fringes of conventional life, its nice to see evidence of what could loosely be described as 'my people' AMassiveGay (talk) 21:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * So... the actor who plays Alex on The Expanse? Apparently he (allegedly) sexually harassed/assaulted several people.  And by several, it's closer to "several dozen".  He will not return for the 6th and final season.  Not sure what they'll do about season 5, considering that's already been filmed.  I mean, dammit, I don't want the shows I like to be ruined, but they wouldn't have been ruined if 1) if he had been outed as a molester a decade ago so someone else would've been cast instead anyway, and 2) by making it clear that harassers will be outed, potential perverts will try to keep their urges in check in the first place and eventually we won't have to worry about abusers being kicked off of shows at all. CoryUsar (talk) 17:23, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Closing Thoughts
After the last "thread" on solipsism I find it is slowly losing it's power over me. But I wanted to know that if the language argument is so strong, and I agree with this, then why do so many say it is true? Also if our brains according to neuroscience already "hallucinate" reality in that it constructs it based on our sensations then isn't that an argument in solipsism's favor? Also what about dreams and how we can create a landscape with all these people in it? And where is the division between inner and outer if it's all sensation. I know I want to put this to bed but there just seem to be so many questions surrounding it all.Machina (talk) 21:56, 21 November 2020 (UTC)


 * People still believe / say all manner of daft stuff in the face of overwhelming evidence.
 * No. You still have an inner voice / language that engages with that brain-constructed interpretation of sensory information. See language argument.
 * You still have language in dreams. See language argument.
 * No such division exists. "Inner" (mind) is just a weird function of a really complex arrangement of "outer" (brain matter).
 * Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 22:37, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

So there is no division between inner and outer, it's all just sensation? Then what about how some would say that dreams are the strongest argument for solipsism:

I mean I know that dreams are different from reality in that once you know you are dreaming you in effect become god and I have had a few lucid dreams. Plus the only way I know I am dreaming is when I wake from that reality. But I can see why some might think dreams would be an argument, but then you run into the problem of where did this material come from.Machina (talk) 00:01, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * One day poof you exist (or poof you exist as do others and somehow they all disappear and you are the only one left). For whatever reason you create a reality in your mind, an extremely bizarre one by the way, in a universe of billions of stars you are stuck on one little planet with animals and plants and an extremely strange "sentient" race with a curious and extremely elaborate history which you've created in a world with consistent physical rules and languages which your mind has invented, though you only understand one or two of them. You also invented accents and hundreds of different cultures. The characters you created, for whatever reason are extremely flawed, including yourself. For whatever reason you've created your own persona with mental problems. You've created a world where people pointlessly suffer. For whatever reason you have given up or have forgotten how to control this reality that you've created and you've become a character stuck in the rules you've created with no ability to change them. And you suffer in this world you've created. And oh...also you've somehow completely forgotten how it is you ended up here. Did you just gradually lose track of how it is this world emerged from your mind? Or did you willingly trap yourself in this world robbing yourself of the memory of how you got here and keeping yourself from being able to change the rules or escape? Either way here you are, but of all the things you didn't rob yourself of, it's the ability to play sleuth and somehow figure out all of this information on your own...that indeed the sum of everything is just whats going on in your mind and you did indeed create everything and yet somehow cast yourself afloat in this world with no memory of how you created it and no ability to change things. Or perhaps after the "poof" you exist and everything is just your mind...your mind instantly created two things, one level which created the structure of this world and another level where you trapped yourself as a character in it doomed to pointlessly suffer with no control over it yet one day perhaps figure it all out.
 * This..................is the simplest explanation? Seriously? Shabi  DOO  01:20, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello guys, I have no idea what solipsism is so can someone tell me? 05:34, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Solipsism is the idea that you can only PROVE you yourself exist. Everything else could very well be some complex illusion, or so the concept goes.-Flandres (talk) 14:39, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Machina goes well beyond the definition Flandres has given (if we were to go only by the first part there is in fact nothing that controversial about it). Machina takes the position that indeed, his mind IS the only thing that exists. He has struggled for months now to defend his case which has consisted entirely of citing bad internet discussion pages and abusing "Occam's razor" as though a the fact that a position is parsimonious that is EVIDENCE in favour of his case, which is not a reasonable application of the razor (at best it should be used as a tool to weed out which theories to NOT take seriously or perhaps DISCREDIT overly complex theories...but in absolutely no case pretend that being parsimonious is somehow PROOF). Laugh my ass off. Shabi  DOO  14:53, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was just trying to be anodyne.-Flandres (talk) 15:25, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No your definition was fine Flandres it's just some people like Machina go beyond a disposition towrads solipsism to "the know solipsism is the case" which is very extreme. Shabi  DOO  16:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

@Shabidoo. May I please use your paragraph (or parts thereof) as a spoken word sample. In a song for by band? Thank you. 115.64.87.72 (talk)
 * Yes by all means do. Post a video some time if you have a chance! Shabi  DOO  14:53, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Don't listen to Shabi, they get it wrong every single time. I am not making the case for it as I clearly don't want it to be true. I just want to sure I covered any counterpoints that might be made by solipsists. He is getting it wrong in that I am asserting that my mind is all that exists when in all my posts it's about "how can I know anyone else besides ME exists". I don't know if I can prove I exist and that requires several assumptions to make, but the key point the Shabi keeps ignoring in everything posted is that I CAN'T PROVE OTHER PEOPLE EXIST OR HAVE MINDS. That is the key issue here, nothing else they THINK is the problem which is why I almost stopped listening to them. I don't want this to be true but it's hard to ignore those who make arguments towards it (sort of). Like saying how it is the default position because of Occam's Razor because we cannot be sure of anything else besides our minds: https://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/14562023/fpart/2/vc/1#14562023 To reiterate, I don't want this to be true but I don't know what to do about those who argue or provide some support for it.Machina (talk) 04:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Machina three things things: you keep talking as though you take a hard solipsistic position but then you deny it...so what is it? Why don't you throw out a likelihood then to give us an idea of how likely you think it is the case. It will help us understand things. Would you say there is a 90% chance that your mind is all that exists? 10%? If you are afraid of giving a number then you can word it as: "highly probable" or "somewhat probable".
 * Do you still stand by your claim after all the absurdities of solipsism has been pointed out to you, that your mind being the only thing that exists is actually the "simplest explanation"?
 * You can use the pronouns he, him, his, himself with me. Shabi  DOO  13:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Because we only have access to the immediate experience before us, well I do (to argue from the problem). I mean what reason can there be to think other people have minds?

All I have is my own experience and it saddens me that anything else beyond that is faith based.Machina (talk) 02:37, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Could you please answer these rwo simple straight forward questions? Shabi  DOO  03:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Ah yes, remember back when Machina's existential fluff was one of the most annoying things about the Saloon Bar? Good times. -- Goatspeed. 03:35, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

The truth is that I don't believe that my mind is the only thing that exists. I don't know the exactly probabilities of anything to be honest so I can't say for sure. But I don't really buy that I am the only one who exists and that everyone else is just a figment. Even with the dream argument there is a difference between dreams and this world. The problem is with the counter arguments against my position, I don't know how to address them and suddenly my confidence in my position crumbles.Machina (talk) 22:26, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Name for a specific concept
Something I have been calling 'post-hoc reasoning' but I do not think that is the correct terminology. The scenario is this:

There is a casual debate going on, one of the participants for whatever reason interprets a statement addressed to them as being 'antagonistic' despite that not being what actually happened nor was intended. They take offence at it and respond with an accusation as such, the person who made the initial statement defends themselves. As more people see this exchange they, for some reason, begin to side with the person who took offence despite that not being what happened and the defence offered.

The term I am looking for describes the phenomenon of viewers reasoning after the fact of the accusation where no one would have mentioned it had the accusation not been made in the first place. They assume that the one who claims offence was made is automatically correct about the other person intentionally being 'antagonistic' and take their side (usually followed by directed insults and the like) merely because they made the accusation in the first place rather than because it has been shown to be true.

This had been bugging me for a while now so hopefully I have made myself clear and the question can be answered.OldWolf2642 (talk) 15:59, 24 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't know if there is any name for the bystanders' actions in this scenario, but I believe invoking this response is referred to as the "wounded gazelle gambit". Might be something in that vein? 99.35.14.164 (talk) 15:19, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

2020 mod elections
If you haven’t seen, the polls are now open for the 2020 mod elections. Polls will close on 1 December. Can confirm that poll watchers will be given fair access to Judge Dredd and Cosmikdebris once counting starts. —RWRW (talk) 20:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)


 * MARWIGA hat.png Vote CircularReasoning to Make RationalWiki Great Again! (Also, you might wanna consider voting for Sirius and RWRW as well.) See my propaganda here. -- Goatspeed. 21:08, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd vote for you if I could, dude. You seem nice, and have made lots of helpful edits. Good on ya. Twodots (talk) 21:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This will be the greatest election steal in RationalWiki history. 21:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. They wouldn't even put me on the ballot. We all know I'd win a popular vote bigly. Very bigly. Twodots (talk) 21:23, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Bongolian for mod 2020! You have my vote! --Channel 48 WDEM-TV3 (talk) 01:19, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The campaigns were still better than the first Trump-Biden debate. We never interrupted each other, the digging-up-of-dirt was all in good faith, and there was no "you just lost the left" or "will you shut up, man". -- Goatspeed. 19:00, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Parler hacked
I don't know where this fits in WIGO-land (not really a blog or clog), so I'll plop it here. Parler, part of the alt-right social media ecosystem, was hacked today. Reportedly names, SSNs and driver's license numbers were stolen. In other Parler news, the site was reportedly censoring (gasp!) any posts that included the stupid/funny hashtag '#WriteInTrumpforGA'. Bongolian (talk) 02:22, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * How did Parler have SSNs and DLs? Don’t tell me the users were moronic enough to hand that info over. 03:00, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Parler demanded SSNs to get a checkmark. Revolverman (talk) 03:26, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Parler requires a phone number to register, so it's possible they thought their info was safe. On the other hand, you can beat that system, it'll just set you back a couple hundred dollars. 03:09, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a pity. Things might get a bit embarrassing for some of the more enthusiastic members of Meinspace. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 03:21, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm just waiting for Sargon's Parler DMs to get leaked so the last of his credibility can die for good. 03:31, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Watching this spectacle, it's hard to figure the far right (or the far left) could organize in this modern world without exposing themselves. So the hard-right media alternatives lose members because they can't protect their members' privacy. Where do they go after that? Does exposure matter after a point? Artificius (talk) 03:47, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, radical centrism. "Both sides bad hur dur." — Oxyaena Harass  04:05, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I would personally wait for better sources on this one, Kevin Abosch is a conceptual artist best known for (according to Kevin Abosch) selling a photograph of a potato for $1 million. (There's an awful whiff of self-promotion with his art stunts.) He's also done a few crypto stunts just to add to the "kinda not reliable" factor. 72.184.174.199 (talk) 04:21, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * (I'll add that the archive link in the Hacker News is from 17 July 2020.) 72.184.174.199 (talk) 04:27, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Someone didn't read someone's else's post in its entirety... 04:30, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Goddamnit Oxy, STFU. I'm asking whether the radicals can hide, not whether they're ideologically pure. Artificius (talk) 05:07, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Honestly, the far-left isn't a concern at all. They have no power and all they do is pollute social media with their larping. The far-right is far more dangerous. As it stands, you shouldn't really be concerned with the far-left (well except if you live in China, the far-left there is quite dangerous with the Communist Party there). 13:43, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * To answer your question (since apparently Oxy and Raven weren't able to understand it) I don't think niche social media is viable these days. Maybe things like Discord servers or subreddits, but never anything as dedicated as Parler or Twitter. I think, to be honest, that the days when groups could organize without being in the open is coming to a close, if it hasn't ended already. 13:53, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Poll about me (not mad, in fact- the opposite)
I actually find it a bit funny. Bet I ruffled someone's feathers. I wonder who though. Again I just find it funny. --Channel 48 WDEM-TV3 (talk) 23:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure it's one of the things that fills in the username of whoever's viewing it. Twodots (talk) 23:30, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. that's exactly what it is. For me, it says, "What is your opinion about Spud?" Spud (talk) 00:09, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I am a bit paranoid. --Channel 48 WDEM-TV3 (talk) 01:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * And rightly so - they are out to get you after all. Aloysius the Gaul 02:55, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah. People need to stop getting mad over polls, such as *cough* *cough* (though I'm not naming names) someone we know all too well... -- Goatspeed. 03:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, is such a whiny little pissant when it comes to complaining about polls. CoryUsar (talk) 03:09, 24 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Yeah, 's been writing long-winded rants about how 's polls demonstrate "fucking ignorance" by describing their favorite topic in an unflattering way. -- Goatspeed. 03:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I'm the one who said that should be worshipped as a god, with daily offerings of virgin chocolate-chip cookies. Zontar (talk) 00:12, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * For the record, I was not mad. I thought the motive was that I ruffled someone's feathers. --Channel 48 WDEM-TV3 (talk) 13:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "Unflattering ways" = loaded language and willful ignorance of and on political philosophy. — Oxyaena Harass  13:26, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh come on, it was only one of the options in that poll; others were less critical of it, while others were just plain humorous to both supporters and critics of anarchism but for different reasons. -- Goatspeed. 18:57, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Very funny. So funny in fact that you can go fuck yourselves with barbed wire. 19:28, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No thanks, it's still dirty from the last time you used it. CoryUsar (talk) 19:31, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


 * It's come to my attention that some of you think I'm using to attack you personally. Heck, from my POV it says I'm pissed at "my" poll. -- Goatspeed.  22:00, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Improvements to the RationalWiki:Contents page...
As it stands right now, the page is one of the first things a newcomer will click on from the mainpage, yet it is grossly outdated, providing a link to conservapedia, and listing very few of the very great content of this site. The main page link to the page states: “See all portals”, while the page has only 10 sections, making the site look very small and insignificant to newcomers.

I am trying to change this.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/User:Sqrt-1/sandbox

I have taken heavy inspiration from the Portal page.

Pros:-
 * Looks cool
 * Overwhelms newcomers with RW content.
 * ...uh... um... yes! Got it! It makes it easier to navigate the wiki!
 * Ok the above reasons should be fine.

Cons:-
 * Loses... nostalgia...?
 * Holy Shit I am bad at this. Just gimme some fucking advice and help me with this project already!

I am looking for some advice and anyone else can edit there, alright? Please. 12:13, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks good, but you might want to take the Table of Contents out of there. 20:47, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I have kept the TOC because it is helpful in navigation. It can be cumbersome to keep scrolling up and down for the section one is looking for. 05:19, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The revision looks good to me. One problem that I have with both pages though is that there's no indication that these are examples, which could mislead someone into thinking that that's all there is. A minor problem with the revision is that there are two 'Goat' links under the Goat header. Bongolian (talk) 21:07, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Removed the goat links. I will add a purge link to show new articles, which should clear the misunderstanding. 05:19, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps a silly idea
Hey, so I’ve been thinking about the fact that it can be pretty overwhelming like existing in the world and whatnot right now. It’s a big part of the reason I personally have been consistently leaving and then sometimes returning. But I just had a thought. What if it was possible to like, keep/attract more good-faith users here by like. Making a WIGO specifically dedicated to positive/hopeful/non-stressful news stories? Or hell, even if it doesn’t keep/attract users, maybe it would just be nice for the sake of it anyway. In fairness, I haven’t really thought the idea through in detail, and I know it probably sounds like a lot of effort for something that might not even be that useful, and there might be a bunch of complications with it or whatever — it’s not something I’d push for if other people thought it was silly. I just thought I’d start a discussion about it, bc I think it would be nice and maybe other people also think so. It can be pretty hard to find places that collect a consistent stream of info that says, hey, you know, good stuff happens too, and I think it might be helpful for a lot of people — I know it would definitely help me at least. So yeah what do you’ll think? (Also, this also might seem silly, but I would just like to kindly request that, bc I’m feeling a bit sensitive right now, that if you don’t think this is a good idea or anything, please do make an effort to say that in a nice way. I mean you’re all usually pretty nice to me and whatnot, but I am just feeling particularly easy to upset right now, so I just thought I’d communicate that clearly to ask for extra caution. Thank you a whole bunch anyway!) 11:48, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I appreciate and even laud what you're trying to do. But I'm not convinced it's a good idea. That's because the same stories would appear in a good news only WIGO as in WIBO World, WIGO COVID and WIGO Elections. Either that or you make those other WIGOs bad news only. And that would really make life look shite. Still, if you want to give it a go, I suggest you start it in your user space. Allow other people to edit it, of course. However, it will also have to be protected so that only autopatrolled users van edit it, Otherwise you'll get creationists, incels, meo-Nazis and woomweisters adding their version of "good news" to it. And you don't want that. Spud (talk) 13:14, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * First up, I just want to say thank you so much for your kind words and your advice! I think that’s a very good point that I hadn’t really considered. I think the userspace idea definitely sounds good though for sure! Would it work to just copy the templates/formatting etc from one of the existing WIGO pages? If not, would you be able to help me set it up at some point? I’m not very good at wiki-code! Additionally, do you know any ways that I could make it so people don’t have to visit my userspace to see it? Just bc I’m often not particularly active or prominent and I think it would be nice to get as much participation as possible! Anyway, many thanks for hearing me out and for your help/advice! 13:35, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


 * If you can't handle the negative news of this world (for whatever reason), maybe don't read news at all. 13:38, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Sorry. I don't know anything about wiki coding either. Hopefully, somebody will see this thread who can help. I also suggest that you post messages on the existing WIGO talk pages asking for help there. I think a way of making that WIGO in your user space a bit more visible would be to have a note at the top of the WIGO World, COVID and election pages. Not a proper WIGO portal link with the nice round logo, you understand. Not yet. Just a link that says something like, "You may also like to visit our Good News Only WIGO." Good luck! I'll probably contribute to it, if it's created. Spud (talk) 14:04, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, that sounds really good thanks a bunch!!! 14:38, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * shit tonne of light and frothy and adorable cat videos on youtube if you need to destress from the existential dread caused by a deluge of doom and gloom. ive found myself watching vids uploaded by a guy with a pet otter (how the fuck is he allowed an otter? i'm not allowed an otter, why is he? theres another uploader with a pet meercat - how the fuck is he allowed a pet meercat?) its dumb, but so adorable with its little squeaks and its little hands and its wrestling with the guys pet cat.
 * you dont need to read every article on every story. scan the headlines. you usually keep abreast of whats going without getting bogged with and obsessing over too much detail. dig deeper if its something of interest to you. the 24 hour news cycle insists on live updates but the minutae often doesnt really add a great deal to our understanding of events, often a summary after the dust has settled gives a clearer picture than obsessing over every little detail as it happens. you can go a bit mental like that, especially when we as individuals often wont be able to effect events too much in the short term - if we could we would instead of overwhelmed by flow of news in a kind of paralysis. if immediate action on your part is not required, step back and live your life. just check back once in a while to keep informed - read the news in the morning for example, not ever 5 mins or constantly refreshing a live stream. recommend putting the iphone down AMassiveGay (talk) 15:18, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you that’s all really good advice!! 16:03, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Since it appears from your sig that you're of Indian descent, maybe you could help me translate some of our cover-story articles into Hindi? It could potentially break down a signficant language and cultural barrier. I've already started a draft translation of Evidence against a recent creation in my userspace. -- Goatspeed. 18:49, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh shit, sorry no I’m not actually of Indian descent, mostly italian ancestry lmao. I just find writing systems really interesting, and a lot of abugidas are my favourite scripts. I know like maybe two or three words of Hindi and Gujarati from a friend, but I’m nowhere near good enough to even feel confident saying more than a couple of sentences. Sorry! 20:10, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

So I’ve gone and tried to make this
Here we go, in my own userspace: What Nice Things Are Going On?. Still very rough, and anyone who is willing to help out with formatting, coding, archives, icons, etc. would be HIGHLY appreciated! Otherwise please feel free to start adding things thank you! 16:03, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I've added the first real news story. The same one I put in WIGO World yesterday. Spud (talk) 23:32, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * DANG thank you so so much!!! 00:29, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh my Goat thank you so much for this WIGO! It is especially beneficial during these trying times full of disease, uncertainty, worrying civil unrest and mass deceit, etc. We could dedicate it to stuff from the little things in life that the news just doesn't cover (because "if it bleeds, it leads") to big wins for democracy, secularism, reality, COVID cure efforts, etc. We should add a link to it in our WIGO template. Any ideas for its icon? -- Goatspeed. 06:19, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't be so hasty! I say give it about three months in user space first. Let's see if it gets many edits from many different editors and if the stories get many upvotes in that time. Then we can decide if it gets moved to mainspace, left in user space or quietly forgotten. And I think that it should only get its own proper icon that appears alongside those of the other WIGOs after it gets moved to mainspace. Spud (talk) 12:36, 26 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Alright. I hope this actually catches on though. It'd make a fine addition to our WIGOs. -- Goatspeed. 19:35, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

:)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhUnqEtTHVA HairlessCat (talk) 16:04, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Staying alive even when it makes no sense
Things have been bad. I have failed the things I’m supposed to do (e.g. university work etc). I have tried and failed to get a job. I have tried and failed to get welfare. I have tried and failed to find somewhere to leave for more than three months at a time. The things that were good in my life — my interests, my partner, my social life — either longer exist in my life or no longer bring me joy. I have no reason to hope I will get better. I have no reason to hope that the world will get better — just look at climate change, COVID, modern fascism, etc. I have no reason to believe that anyone really cares whether I stick around. And yet I do. I have no idea why, but I just stay alive. I don’t know how I do it, I don’t know how long I can do it for, but for now, I’m still here, and I hope to stay here for a while longer. Why am I posting this? Because I got paid money for the first time in months and could afford a full bottle of alcohol (tequila), all to myself, instead of mooching from my “friends” (ppl who hate me but feel sorry for me). So I can drink as much as I want with no guilt. And that’s what I did and that’s why I’m posting. Stay Cool everybody. And also, I should mention that I am disabled and also LGBT (I will not explain precisely do not ask), so most the people I met in society see me as a degenerate and a useless eater. So that’s nice. Ppl don’t want me to exist, my life doesn’t want me to exist. But fuck it. I guess I’m just gonna do it anyway. I don’t need a dang reason. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 115.64.87.72 / talk
 * Spite. Spite is always a good motivator. 14:53, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * nil illegitimi carborundum sed carborundum illegitimi. (Don't let the bastards grind you down, but grind them down.) Anna Livia (talk) 17:19, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Uh, no, the world is not getting worse.
 * I wouldn't recommend watching all of Kurzgesagt's videos while in a bad mood (they often cause existential despair), here are a few good ones to watch.
 * We are curing all diseases
 * Overpopulation is a myth
 * The Egg. Just... watch.  And like the video; you are only liking yourself.
 * Massive Wars may be a thing of the past CoryUsar (talk) 17:23, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Just ignore runaway climate change, growing inequality, and the grand and dramatic lowering of poverty essentially being a myth supported by pseudo-statistics.-Flandres (talk) 17:25, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If you think absolute poverty is growing, then why are life expectancies massively rising in almost all countries? You can argue that the lion's share of economic growth has gone to fewer and fewer people, but the people at the bottom still have gotten slightly more than they did in the past. Even the very worst country has a life expectancy of mid-50's, which is close to a decade more than the US was in 1900.  If you must have a cynical view about it, it's because diseased corpses are difficult for sweatshops to exploit. CoryUsar (talk) 17:52, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * One, I did not say it was growing, I said its reduction is not as dramatic as hyped. Two, common measures used to quantify extreme poverty are quite flawed-I actually believe a great article on that was linked here some time ago! It was related to Philip Alston, I think...-Flandres (talk) 17:56, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd argue that life expectancies going up 20-30 years is indication of a massive reduction in extreme poverty. Plus, I believe you have an extremely Eurocentric view that has colored your view of places like India and Sub-Saharan Africa.  While Nigeria, for instance, still has huge numbers of people in poverty, literally half of the people actually do have a middle class lifestyle, with cell phones and whatnot.  On paper, they don't make much money, but then, the rents are much cheaper as a result; GDP per capita tends to exaggerate  inequality on an international scale for this reason (and make poor Americans and Europeans look wealthier than they are as well as make filthy-rich Africans look poorer than they are). CoryUsar (talk) 18:03, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * When have I mentioned eurocentrism? What? Again, Philip Alston, myths about massive poverty reduction, blah blah blah.-Flandres (talk) 18:05, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It's basically the reason that a lot of us look down upon the rest of the world with pity. It's an unconscious bias, and it's important to understand the problem of The One Single Story CoryUsar (talk) 18:08, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * So I think bad things are happening in Syria, Armenia, India, Hungary, Brazil, Italy, Peru, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Laos, the USA, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and scores of other places(oh and across the globe because you apparently have no idea what effects climate change will have and have never read a UN report on that ever) because I am a arrogant white person? Wow. How...sad.-Flandres (talk) 18:12, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No, you think ONLY bad things are happening in those countries. We all do to some extant; our minds arent capable of understanding all the nuances in just one single country, let alone 200+ of them.  It's easier to just say "Bangladesh = Overpopulated Hellhole of Poverty and Overpopulation" or similar with any other country. -CU 98.0.214.234 (talk) 19:08, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, I don't.. I just do not think the world as a whole is on a trajectory to keep getting better, and numerous ongoing problems help prove that. You misunderstand my position entirely.-Flandres (talk) 19:11, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Ah then I apologize, though I disagree on the trajectory of the world. -CU 98.0.214.234 (talk) 19:15, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the apology. Although I must recommend you read more about the effects of climate change before you engage in Steven Pinker-esque idiocy.-Flandres (talk) 19:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Actually I would not watch "the egg" as that would likely just push you over the edge.Machina (talk) 04:43, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

GameStop / PS5 F****ery
Further proof that capitalism is bullshit. Sony has made it virtually impossible to buy, online portals aren't secure from bots, and resellers are scalping consoles 100% above MSRP minimum. I bought one on StockX, at 50% above MSRP, then the seller backed out cause the price spiked. I luckily picked one up from GameStop, but it was only in a bundle with another controller (which I already bought), a media remote (which I won't use), two games I'm not really interested in playing and a PS Plus membership I don't need. They just sent me a receipt breaking down the price for each part of the bundle, everything is priced 5% above MSRP. Why do we tolerate practices like this? (I'm not interested in "hur dur how about you don't buy it", I play video games.)-RipCityLiberal (talk) 00:58, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That's why I'm part of the PC Master Race. CoryUsar (talk) 01:04, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No seriously, us PC guys have been warning everyone else about this for years. Your Playstation is NOT a computer, it's an appliance.  You have no say as to which components go into it, you have no say as to what exclusitivity deals Nintendo and Sony can make regarding what game gets what port.  Nothing.  Want Halo on PS5?  You are SOL.  Want Mario on Xbox?  Nope.  But if you play on a computer, Dell can't sign an exclusive agreement with Bethesda so that Elder Scrolls 6 will only come out for Dell computers; if it runs on a Dell it will run on an HP or IBM computer.  This is part of the reason I sneer at Apple and their fanbois; they are just as much part of the problem as the people playing on consoles. CoryUsar (talk) 01:14, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * PC for the win. 01:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * My roommate managed to get a diskless version. Pretty sure he must have pre-ordered back in 1993 though.  MirrorIrorriM (talk) 01:37, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * PC? No! I’ve had enough of liberal Hollywood values Political Correctness! Merry Christmas, snowflakes! 03:02, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Capitalism is bullshit?? I think not - this is capitalism exactly as it is supposed to be - price gouging whenever you can is what it is all about.  They say there's a sucker born every minute....   when's your birthday?? Aloysius the Gaul 02:24, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It's a failure of capitalism because the price gouging isn't being done by SONY itself. The people buying up the PS5's for $500 and reselling for $1000 have done absolutely nothing to increase the supply of PS5's.  That's profit that should be going to the manufacturer, to encourage the manufacturer to, well, manufacture.  It's basically the same as scalping; people buy up all the tickets, then resell at higher price, a price the artist should've been charging from the start.  Money that would go towards encouraging new shows or improved venues instead goes into the pockets of parasites, of rent seekers. CoryUsar (talk) 03:13, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It is scalping, to be technical. 03:16, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * All capitalism consists of is rent-seeking. — Oxyaena Harass  04:02, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised Gamestop is still in business. Nonstopmaximum (talk) 14:08, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If you notice, they don't have PC games. Everyone has internet, so Master Race folk get our games through Steam, GOG, or any of the myriad of wannabe streaming sites.  Consoles still require physical media, and that means either going to a store or purchasing it through an online retailer and waiting a few days and praying no one steals your package.  Seriously, package thieves are one of the biggest reasons that physical stores still exist.
 * But anyway, it's interesting to look at the price of your $60 game. The store needs to make money too, so $30 goes to the store, which is actually a lot less than you'd expect given that stores typically have much higher markups on everything else.  So now the game designer gets $30, BUT!  They have to share that with the console for licensing; Nintendo sells consoles at cost, but SONY and MS sell theirs at a loss, but they all get money from every game sold.  It's around $7 per game.  Bought 20 games for your PS?  SONY got $140, and didn't incur any manufacturing and shipping expenses.  Only bought 1 game for your PS?  It's possible SONY lost money from you.  This also is an incentive for the consoles to ensure there isn't too much backwards compatibility, as every time you have to buy a whole new library of games, Nintendo gets more money.  Any game you ran through Steam 15 years ago will still run on a computer today, and if you really want your old DOS games to work there's DosBox and a couple sites dedicated to giving away all those old DOS games for free.  Master of Magic is STILL the best turn-based magical empire game ever; you think a Life Warlord with Champion Paladins is overpowered?  Just feel the wrath of my fleet of Invisible Hasted Flying Warships!
 * Your online Steam games? Steam takes around 25% of the revenue instead of 50%, so the $60 can now be $45 and the developer gets the same revenue.  Now add in that the developer doesn't need licensing fees, and the price drops to $30 for the developer to get the same as the store.  Now add in there's virtually no manufacturing costs, no shipping, little marketing beyond Steam adverts (and Steam has every incentive to advertise on your behalf!), and, well, now you know why all the games are constantly on sale for 50% off.  It's a bit of a marketing ploy, of course, "get this $60 game for just $30 now while you can even though we'd always price it at $30!", but it's still cheaper than the brick and mortar.  Plus, everything is available online, including games from 20 years ago if you are interested, instead of the 100 or so titles that Gamestop decided to stock.
 * Now, there are shennanigans of course. There isn't quite the Freemium bullshit, but Paradox and Maxis are notorious for DLC.  If you want everything from The Sims 4, all the stuff that had already been programmed and added in previous titles, that'll cost, oh... $800.  Screw that.  Paradox is a bit better, games like Stellaris really are fully fleshed out, and all content (so far) would "only" cost about $200, but everything goes on sale for 50% off at some point and the base game is always on sale for 75% off, so if you are patient it's more like $90, but those expansions/DLC really can be worth it depending on what you want to play.  Plus, Paradox makes such realistic games that actual cities use Cities: Skylines as a way to figure out how to make their road systems better. CoryUsar (talk) 17:11, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * i turn on my xbox and start up a game, and it works right away out of the box. no arsing around with drivers and sound cards and graphic cards, and i can sit on my sofa with a massive tv to view everything. no faffing around with tweaking this or adjusting that. its meant to be fun not a fuckin chore. fuck all that shit. i play video games but im not a gamer - i have a sex life. and no you dont require physical media with consoles, not for a year or two at least. and keyboard and mouse is just complete wank as a control method for anything other than strategy. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:16, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You know they make game controllers for PC, right? And drivers auto-update these days; the only annoying thing is changing the settings to match your computer specs, IIRC, XBox doesn't let you change the resolution.  If you really wanted to, you could connect your compy up to your TV with an HDMI cable, set your TV as the monitor to play your games from, do some black magic with the audio, and Boom!  Your computer is now a console for the couch!  Now, the only real disadvantage is that your friends can't play with you at the same couch, and this is the real problem with the PC.  Also why I loved the N64 with 4 controllers, because 4 people playing in the same room was just the best!  Then when XBox came out, we hooked 4 of them up together and had 16 people in the same room playing Halo in a massacre...CoryUsar (talk) 21:58, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * (EC)My feeling as well, it is an appliance, one that only requires minimal effort to assemble, and maximum pleasure for about 5 years between generations
 * Also God of War is worth it.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 22:00, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * no god of war on xbox sadly. playstation apparently has the edge there. oh well, game pass is still pretty solid and they've just folded ea play into it (which is good only if you like fifa, but still about 90 titles at no extra cost). game pass is cross platform too, so you nerds can have ya PCs still. game pass is a rare thing for the industry - a decent deal AMassiveGay (talk) 20:45, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Also as far as I know I can't play Pokémon shield on the PC and Hades is terrible on the PC. So.........PC ain't really a master race.Machina (talk) 04:40, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving everyone!
Happy thanksgiving! There is a lot of be thankful for
 * Good old Mises. Nice to see the cranks get to keep the lights on. IveBeenFrank (talk) 00:29, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah! Complaining about Communists and not the actual problems in the world. --Channel 48 WDEM-TV3 (talk) 03:54, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Difference between Homosexuality and Transgender?
12:37, 26 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Homosexuality is same sex attraction. transgender concerns gender identity. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:45, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. 13:48, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Did it take THAT long to realize?--HedvigsenSkreonk here 10:48, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I thought they were the same. It DID take quite a few years for me to realise... 12:23, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Debunking Seven Common Criticisms of Austrian Economics
Let's clear up some misconceptions about Austrian economics.

If people want to dismiss this school of thought, which many seem inclined to do for political (not theoretical) reasons, at least they should do so based on facts and knowledge, not on falsehoods. Here are corrections:

"Austrian economics is not empirical."

False.

Empirical studies ("history") are important in Austrian economics and have larger scope than in mainstream economics. Mises worked with applied research in the Vienna Chamber of Commerce and founded the Austrian Institute for Business Cycle Research, for which he appointed Hayek as the first director. This is where Hayek did much of the business cycle research that later won him the Nobel Prize. What critics fail to understand is Austrians' narrower definition of theory, which is not a collection of hypotheses but true, general statements. Austrian economic *theory* cannot be developed using incomplete and imprecise measurements of observations. But this does not mean Austrians cannot or will not do empirical research.

"Austrian economic theory is not related to the real world."

False.

Austrians, following Mises, derive true statements from the nature of human action: that it is purposeful behavior, i.e., actors aim to achieve something they consider both attainable and valuable using the means they recognize as appropriate and effective. Action always takes place in the real world and it is through our real-world experience that we recognize that the nature of action is in fact true. What is logically derived from a true statement about action cannot magically lose its empirical relevance just because it is derived logically rather than "letting the data speak." Austrians hold the typical view of economists since at least Adam Smith: that theory cannot be derived from observations. Austrian theory, as traditional/classical economic theory, is more like math than empirical physics. Math produces true a priori statements that we use to understand what we observe. That we can calculate partial derivatives but not observe them does not make them less true in/about the real world. It is the same with Austrian economics.

"Austrian economic theory cannot explain phenomena in the real world."

False.

Similar to the previous misconception, this statement evaluates Austrian theory using a different definition of theory. Mainstream economics claims to explain more, even specific cases, by adopting a looser and thereby broader definition of theory, which only makes it less reliable. Simply put, mainstream economics cannot make a claim of truth. Austrian economics can, because its theory solely derives from a true axiom (action as purposeful behavior)—nothing beyond what can be derived logically enjoys the status of theory. Austrians make the stronger claim but stick within narrower boundaries of theory. This does not make the theory unrelated to the real world, but only more reliable. Just like, e.g., engineers can use true math to make reliable calculations about real-world projects, Austrians use true economic theory as a framework to uncover the real goings-on in the real economy.

"Austrian economics cannot explain why people act."

False.

The action axiom states exactly why people act: they aim to attain something they personally value, seeking to change their present situation for one anticipated to be better. But it is true that Austrians do not attempt to explain the mental processes that make a person value one thing over another. That's not the role of the economist, however. Being logicians, Austrians use very stringent and clear definitions and distinctions. They clearly distinguish between the realms of economics and psychology, the former being the study of action and its effects and the latter the study of the motivations for behavior. Similarly, within economics, Austrians distinguish between theory, which is a priori and true, and history, which is the study of empirical data through the lens of theory. It is unfortunate that other schools of thought are comparatively sloppy in their definitions and distinctions, which makes them much less reliable, less scholarly, and, so, less scientific.

"There is no way of telling if Austrian economic theory is accurate."

False.

If this were the case, then there would also be no way of telling if statements of logic, math, geometry, etc. are true. That's clearly not the case. The statement makes the error of assuming economic theory is inductive and empirical, which is not true for the Austrian school (see above)—and wasn't true of economics until well into the twentieth century. Economics was (and properly is) a deductive science.

"Austrian economics is an idiosyncratic take on economics."

False.

Austrian economics continues the economic reasoning tradition from classical economics but adds the marginalist analysis and value subjectivity of Carl Menger. It is modern economics that breaks with the discipline's roots in deductive social theorizing by its physics envy, mathematizing, straying into the realm of psychology, and aiming for efficient social engineering through policy rather than for understanding the market economy.

"Austrian economics is ideological."

False.

This is the most ridiculous and ignorant of the misconceptions. Note how Austrian economic theory is a priori deductive and based in logic. There is no room for ideology. In fact, this makes Austrian economics much less ideological than the schools of economic thought that rely on empirical analysis for theorizing, since such analysis necessarily includes a large degree of interpretation (so the theorist's personal view can easily, and often does, enter). What this critique means is that the critic has an ideological or emotional resentment of free markets, typically asserting that "markets don't work." Austrians don't make such normative statements, but only explain (by uncovering) how markets work: free, interventionist, and centrally planned. The value judgment of what is better is not part of theory, but Austrians can expertly point out whether a means is appropriate for the stated end. Also, Austrians properly theorize on the free market first (that is, unhampered [inter]action) to then uncover the impact of specific influences (regulations, changes in preferences, etc.). You cannot understand how an influence changes things unless you first understand how the economy works without it.
 * Sign your goat-damn posts. It's not hard. Twodots (talk) 06:01, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Funny how the Austrian school is "non-ideological" but all it's assertions always come to the conclusion that an unregulated free market with an all-powerful oligarchy is the best economic system. –Tuxer (talk) 09:26, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Buddy, this isn't your point. The Austrian school's "logic," "empiricism," and "historical understanding" are exactly what Marx did. In fact, I'd say the whole of the Austrian school, especially "The Road of Serfdom" is nothing more than a right-libertarian version of Karl Marx. Guess what: Both have developed cultish followings, have been rejected by the real world. Hell, even Milton Friedman ("I think the Austrian theory has done the world a great deal of harm.") called it a failure. And guess what: it's been proven to fail. Keneysianism pulled the world out of the Great Depression. And finally, my poor little IP, don't you have better things to do? All of your input has been throwing links in the Saloon Bar and copy-pasting text walls. IveBeenFrank (talk) 11:12, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * and keynesianism was replaced by neoliberalism and all of its reforms rolled back. Reformism is doomed to failure. When the powers that be deem it safe enough to roll back reforms, they will do so. — Oxyaena Harass  `
 * The "powers that be" are not one group, but are in fact competing groups within a given framework. Now, if we actually put the philosophical effort in, we'll quickly come to the conclusion that we simply can't make prediction past a certain point, as we don't have indicators for the variables. 14:20, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Also Austrian Schooler BoN, read The Wealth of Nations (don't just skim the introduction) And Moral Sentiments, both by Adam Smith. Both are incompatible with Austrian Schooler thought. 14:31, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Like Ayn Rand, the Austrian school of economics does have a tendency to produce over-lofty papers with zillions of puffy-sounding words, that could be summarized in just five ("Fuck you - I Got Mine"). 72.184.174.199 (talk) 14:57, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Proposed Portals and Articles section on the main page vs Current section
There is a vote going on about changing the Portals and Articles section on the main page.

Please vote here

Goat

 * 1) Proposed changes to the new version go here. 12:44, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) I'm pretty sure Saloon bar is wrong place to hold a vote. Not sure what's the right place though. 12:59, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what the right place is... but I guess at least the customers at this bar can see my proposal. 13:03, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Well one of the Mods or Techs or someone else who knows should move it. And maybe leave a notice here in bar that it's being voted on and where the vote happens. 13:06, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Talk:Main Page 14:14, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I have shifted the voting there. 14:38, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I moved all the pre vote stuff there too, so people know what's going on. 14:49, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Has anyone else listened to "Everywhere At The End Of Time" yet?
Since my grandpa with dementia passed away from COVID at his nursing home, these albums became very personal to me. Rockford the Roe (talk) 02:29, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I tried to listen to it. Quite depressing, really, and didn’t get the promised dementia (probably because I listened to it for 10 minutes and stopped). I have no idea how and why someone made this, but at least the album art looks... well... weird, but it fits quite well with the music. Overall, 6/10. Maybe if I was able to gain more knowledge about such music I may have somewhat appreciated it. Pretty unique though. 04:17, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 6 hours is a strange investment, I can't do it. Somebody will do it, The caretaker is an empty bliss is an old favorite but I would never dedicate the time to six hours.  Maybe I'm lucky for that.  I miss my Grandpas too.  My dad looked especially old this year, he lost his dad and won a COVID bout. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:31, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

China's solar and wind power
https://www.csis.org/east-green-chinas-global-leadership-renewable-energy

Is this as big as it sounds? Like is this something that might actually get done? Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 04:06, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * In fairness, China knows that oil and gas are finite, and that production of oil would never be able to keep up with China's demand for energy as the Sleeping Dragon awakens. Wind and Solar, with investments in engineering and design, can theoretically be scaled up in ways that Oil can't. CoryUsar (talk) 06:07, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * So even if China makes serious environmental moves, it probably isn't for the sake of the environment itself but rather for the empowerment of China? Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 07:00, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, let's be realistic here. The primary focus of any nation (at least ideally) is that nation and it's citizens.  Chinese foreign, energy, and economic policies are going to be primarily about what good they can bring China, not an often nebulous "Greater good for all mankind".
 * I mean, a nation that find something that is for the Greater Good is likely to implement it because said Greater Good will encompass them also. If, for some reason, it would screw them instead, well, they're far less likely to consider it.  If a nation (be it China, the US, Russia, or Lichtenstein) looks at a policy that says, "Hey, this is going to make the world a much better place-- except us, us it's going to fuck over majorly", the chances of that nation implementing said policy verge on nil.
 * In general, nations are not particularly interested in self-sacrifice, because that simply isn't why they exist. Kencolt (talk) 09:08, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * why wouldnt this be for the sake of the environment? its inherently combined with every other motive china might have. china is just at risk from the dangers of climate as anywhere else in the world. noxious air pollution and pollution in general directly harms chinese citizens and harms its own economy and air pollution in china is apparently very bad, though significantly better and still improving since 2013. on every front, domestic and global, china gains economically, strategically, politically and ecologically from its drive for renewable energy. you dont have to pick one reason over another when there are many differing considerations that are not at odds with one and another. self interest is not incompatible with the global good. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:35, 26 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes. I hear they've been building skyscrapers with lots of plants on them, to compensate for deforestation. -- Goatspeed. 19:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Probably one of the only positive changes enacted by the CCP... Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 00:06, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That and the lifting of most of the peasants out of extreme poverty, resulting in extremely lengthened lifespans. That might've happened if the Nationalists (Taiwan) had won instead, but, maybe not.  Who knows, the Nationalists may have been even more genocidal than the current ruling party is. CoryUsar (talk) 15:15, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I didn't realize that the poverty alleviation efforts they boasted about were actually that effective. Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 06:30, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I mean, they may not have been. It's not uncommon for authoritarian nations to do things like that. North Korea, the USSR... Twodots (talk) 06:44, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It was the extensive use of sweatshops. Peasants normally live a life of subsistence, and not the Disney kind with cutesy songs.  Long grueling hours, no healthcare to speak of, and an early death.  And that's if they're lucky, and don't have to resort to crime or prostitution.  The sweatshops have to pay a bit better than that, and in many cases, they paid much more than that.  People fight with each other over those jobs, not because the jobs are so great, but because everything else is so, so much worse.  At this point, the Chinese sweatshops are paying 44 cents per hour, which sounds like nothing until you realize these people (and remember, they are people) would have even less. CoryUsar (talk) 16:29, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That's horrible. Twodots (talk) 18:14, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It's a matter of perspective. Assuming we don't nuke ourselves into the stone age, the children 1000 years from now will look at our time where people had to "work" for 40 hours a week at a job they didn't care for in order to barely afford to live in "houses" which could never float in space, only to die at the incredibly young age of 85 years old of some ancient disease known as "cancer" as beyond barbaric.  From the perspective of a Medieval peasant, working "only" 70 hours a week in a sweatshop, eating a diet that consists of more than 10 different ingredients in any given week, and more importantly all but guaranteed to eat said diet, with a health system that includes such miracles as "antibiotics" and "vaccines", and a government which only occasionally murders your son or rapes your daughter without repercussion, would be almost heaven. CoryUsar (talk) 21:05, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Something I came across that just screams RW article
http://www.heavenly-angels.org/english/default_en.htm

I was watching horror content on YouTube pertaining to disturbing YouTube channels and websites. This site was mentioned as "scary" in said YouTube video. Honestly this is just a hilariously bad website filling to the brim with pseudoscience, alien content, conspiracies, apocalyptic predictions and religious garbage.

Welcome to heavenly-angels.org

This site looks like something out of the 1990's. It's quality is barely a step above Cambridge Theological Seminary. --Channel 48 WDEM-TV3 (talk) 00:17, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, if you decide to make an article on it, I wish you luck. :) Twodots (talk) 00:35, 28 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Dunno if it would warrant an article or not (is it notable?) but methinks their description of our site as "scary" would make a great addition to PISSED. -- Goatspeed. 21:39, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

spam
Good news or bad news? Iran chants "Death to Israel". What did Iran expect would happen?
 * BoN, not signing your posts does not give you anonymity. It makes you rude. Having different opinions from us is fine, but you need to practice basic courtesy. It isn't difficult. Add four tildes (a tilde looks like this: ~) to the end of your posts. Please at least try. Twodots (talk) 06:20, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh look, we're murdering civilians. This will totes make Iran stop it's nuclear weapons program. After all, it's not like less powerful nations want nuclear weapons as a bargaining chip in international politics... Hint: Now they're going to double their efforts, and they'll use this murder in their internal and external propaganda. Looks like Hawkish foreign policy is shit eh? 15:42, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Not really. First off, they can put all the effort in the world into it, but without the skilled scientists it doesn't matter how much money you throw at the program.  Second, Iran was already spending every cent it could on foreign affairs bullshit, from attempting to assassinate Saudi Diplomats to funding Hezbollah and Bashar al-Assad and every last Iraqi Shia terrorist (and some of Iraqi al Qaeda!), so it's not like this will cause Iran to throw even more money at terrorist groups.  Part of the problem of the Iran nuclear deal is that the US couldn't place sanctions on Iran for funding terrorism or, hell, trying to assassinate diplomats.  Basically, as long as there were no nukes, Iran could do whatever it wanted with no repercussions from the US.  And that money that was seized by the US?  It was returned all at once, instead of simply returning a chunk of it each year as the deal progressed, because Obama was so desperate for any deal no matter how awful in order to stamp his name on something.
 * What this does do is reduce the chance of Iran accepting any new nuclear deal with the US now that Biden is back in power and wants to restore Obama's legacy. Basically, keep Iran fighting everyone instead of focusing mainly on Israel... and KSA, and interfering in Iraq, and, well, really every last Sunni country; Iran has made a lot of enemies that it doesn't even need to be enemies with.  Such is life under a Theocracy. CoryUsar (talk) 16:39, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think it was an awful deal (It got Iran to tone down their NWP), but I do agree that it could have been done better. As for the effects. Yes, the primary effect is that it'll screw over future diplomacy (Iran will assume the US is behind it even if we weren't, such is the price of interfering in everyone's affairs) however, it will still give them martyrs to plaster on their screens and use as fuel for propaganda. Which will in turn help them play the victim, which will make it harder to repair relations between the US and Iran, not to mention it could make them much more aggressive with their conventional military. Also, it's kind of a violation of international law to murder civilians, not like anyone gives a shit about internal law... 16:54, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Adopt a Stub (Week 2)
Why hello there, pretty people of the internet! Hope everyone's feeling good. Thought you guys here might be a little bored, so I took the liberty of digging up another old stub that everyone seems to have forgotten about. Consider improving it, if you like (or don't, and just let me delete it 4 weeks from now! *Maniacal Laughter*)

This week's neglected old stub is Gregg Braden. This "article", created 6 years ago, hasn't a single reference in it, not to mention the fact that it's shorter than the random puppy I sneaked into this paragraph. Man's a crank. So what? Cranks are a dime a dozen on this Godforsaken planet, so I can only presume that this tosser did something notable enough to justify his existence on our wiki. Prove it!

You have until the 26/12/20 (which is four Saturdays from now) to adopt. Hit me up on my talkpage or under this post if you'd like me to deliver the stub to you (or just add bits to it at your leisure, if you want. That also does the trick). If after 28 days nobody makes it worthy of our mainspace I will nominate it for deletion/Draft space.

May the trolls who annoy you grow old in their mother's basements. Good luck. - Rairyu75  ( Talk ) 11:01, 28 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Hey, that throws up an interesting question. If we decide to delete that stub, will the equally stubby Slovak translation get deleted at the same time? Spud (talk) 11:53, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I believe it will. 14:53, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait, if adopting a stub is like adopting a puppy but requires less caring for them, the does that mean that you deleting an article is the same as killing the puppies that didn’t get adopted after 4 weeks? 👀 14:53, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It used to be a thing on this wiki that if you pointed at something that needed doing, it was taken as an offer to do it yourself. If you added as much text to the article as you have to this thread, it'd be a job well done. Instead it's not done and you're trying to get someone else to do it for you. Avida Dollarsher again 15:29, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hiya! Just on the trying "to get someone else to do it for you." I actually don't want people to do anything for me to improve these stubs. I wanted them all deleted because they look like bird poo on the glass shop front! :D (And I still do think that.) But many people disagreed with me about going through the place with a flamethrower to get rid of these small stubby two sentence abominations which nobody touched for years, so I did what Spud asked me to do, which is to advertise their existence instead.


 * "If you added as much text to the article as you have to this thread, it'd be a job well done." Don't let my verbose tendencies fool you Avida. I am an unskilled moron, and as you can tell from my writing, quantity doesn't equal quality. Adding an extra ten non sequitur sentences to a stub with no references would have taken me no effort, but if anything it would have made the stub worse. The act of me chatting here with you isn't taxing. Reading 50 news articles/NGO reports about rape and torture in Chechnya IS. Writing is effortless. Evaluating the sources and synthesising them - that takes time. So my primary counter argument is that you are making a bit of a false equivalency there by saying I could have easily made the stubs worthy. If it was that easy I would have done it in a heartbeat my friend. Heck, if writing long rants in the Saloon Bar equated to article writing skills, we'd be swimming in gold! (>_>) I KNOW what it's like when passers-by say "You should have an article on X". It's silly, and unhelpful. So I didn't wave my arms and say, IMPROVE THE STUBS OR ELSE!!! It ISN'T that simple.


 * "It used to be a thing on this wiki that if you pointed at something that needed doing, it was taken as an offer to do it yourself." And that is what I did. I told them what I thought, and started nominating stubs for deletion, because I wanted them GONE. They sucked, nobody liked them, nobody touched them. So I made the effort to get rid of them. Whereupon I was told to not do that, and do THIS instead. I neither unilaterally deleted articles without asking anyone, or harassed others into improving the stubs. I asked the mob, and they responded, and now I'm doing what THEY tell ME. I'm bothered by unformatted references too, but I don't DEMAND others do them. I just go ahead and fix them up. I want a better Ramzan article. So I'm writing it. The sole reason this weekly advert exists is because somebody wanted me to do it. If you'd like me to not make these posts here in the Saloon Bar ever again and you get a load of people to agree with you, I will happily stop and not throw a tantrum. They said not to delete them, so I didn't. If they say don't advertise, then that's what I 'll do. I'm not invested either way.


 * I apologise if what I am doing with the stubs annoys you Avida. I don't take your criticism to heart, nor do I think less of you for voicing your opinion. ('But Rairyu75, if I didn't hit a nerve then why did you type me out a f@cking novel?!' Because I am sleep deprived. I am so sleep deprived I don't even remember if I showered yesterday. And when I am in this state, I write walls of text at the rate of 1 text wall/minute. (I also do other things in this state, but let's not talk about it...) Anyway, I hope you are doing well, Dollars, and that I didn't insult you in some way. Mind yourself!) - Rairyu75  ( Talk ) 16:19, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Treading carefully
What do I do if a user readds info to an article after I undo it? I'm new to being a sysop. (context: the BoN in question seems to be hell-bent on expunging that torture is a crime against humanity on the Tulsi Gabbard article.) ElectrosPardon? 14:24, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * in your case, i'd advise doing nothing. your edits added nothing, and their removal does not in any way 'expunge that torture is a crime against humanity' AMassiveGay (talk) 14:32, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * in anycase, it should be taken to the talk page where you can defend your edits AMassiveGay (talk) 14:34, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to take care of stub problem
As we've seen there has been an issue dealing with stub articles on the wiki. They are embarassing as they are tiny little shitty articles that say nothing and waste time. Virtually nothing is lost if most of these are deleted because if someone ever wanted to expand them they could easily rewrite the two sentences of these stubs (and probably write better material). I propose that we do the following:

Spend a weeks time tagging bad stub articles (not necessarily all stubs). We can call it "STUB INTENSIVE CARE NEEDED" template or whatever. This involves putting a template at the top stating this article needs improvement or will be deleted and adding the article to the category (whatever we call the category). This way users can review the category for templates they think shouldn't be in the category or stubs that need to be rescued before deletion. Afterwards people can contest the addition of the template by discussing it on the page's talk_page. After a year (or longer if anyone really insists) if nobody has contested the template and nobody has improved the stub they can be deleted without an article for deletion entry. Thoughts on this? Shabi DOO  20:23, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Your PC ran into an error and needs to restart. We're just collecting some error info, and then we'll restart for you. (0% complete) - Rairyu75  ( Talk ) 20:33, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Your PC ran into an error and needs to restart. We're just collecting some error info, and then we'll restart for you. (0% complete) - Rairyu75  ( Talk ) 20:33, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Your PC ran into an error and needs to restart. We're just collecting some error info, and then we'll restart for you. (0% complete) - Rairyu75  ( Talk ) 20:33, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Your PC ran into an error and needs to restart. We're just collecting some error info, and then we'll restart for you. (0% complete) - Rairyu75  ( Talk ) 20:33, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Your PC ran into an error and needs to restart. We're just collecting some error info, and then we'll restart for you. (0% complete) - Rairyu75  ( Talk ) 20:33, 28 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Whether or not it should be unilaterally deleted after a year depends on how many sentences the stub has. If it is hopelessly tiny then I'm all for nuking it, but otherwise it's generally not a good idea to delete anything that's missional and isn't obvious spam/harassment/copyright violation without an AFD. -- Goatspeed. 21:42, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * We already have a rating system for "significantly problematic" articles, though this categorization is not strictly limited to stubs. See Category:Talk pages for significantly problematic articles. To add an article to this category, use the rated template as in the following example:


 * At one point we also had a sort-of active Monday morning dumpster dive, but it fell into disuse and I converted it over to the "problem article portal" that it is now. This page is useful for looking at stuff that needs to be fixed, including stubbies. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 00:57, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Freewdum undoor attuck
[https://mises.org/wire/covid-just-latest-excuse-canadas-politicians-violate-constitution In terms of their widespread application and rapid implementation, Chinavirus policies have been the most egregious violations of Canada’s constitution, ever. But my opinion doesn’t matter, because judges are the only people allowed to interpret the constitution—a convenient arrangement for the government.]

Canada’s constitution includes the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Charter).

Freedom of association. Freedom of peaceful assembly. Freedom to work and earn a living. These are just some of the freedoms included in the Charter which have been denied to Canadians as a result of the government’s various Chinavirus mandates, such as economic lockdowns, quarantine/isolation of healthy people, social distancing, face masks, prohibitions of large gatherings, restricted access to medical treatment, etc.
 * brO!!1 so TRue! stupid stpd dumb stupid head dumb head stupid libtard liberal stupid liberals are stupid! bro! epic! so true! stupid libtards! bro! epic libtard destructin! epic! stupid libtards are liberal stupid dumb libtarded! very epic!11 Twodots (talk) 21:12, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'd rather be stateless in Somalia, and loving it. 21:42, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Your inability to correctly format a wiki comment says it all, BoN. -- Goatspeed. 21:47, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * From the Canadian Constitution (under Rights and freedoms in Canada) "subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."--Cms13ca (talk) 00:23, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Is containing a plague not a reasonable limit? I mean really, acting as if containing a plague of all things is "infringing on freedom" (while most of those same people condemn BLM and cheer on police abuse) is simply absurd. 01:00, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Harvard University has a blog with a summary of Canada's actions from a legal perspective. Based on the information I see there, Mises is being dumb as usual, with overwrought overemotional diatribes on muh freedoms and muh rights that can't even get the structure or Constitution right. 72.184.174.199 (talk) 04:07, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Harvard University has a blog with a summary of Canada's actions from a legal perspective. Based on the information I see there, Mises is being dumb as usual, with overwrought overemotional diatribes on muh freedoms and muh rights that can't even get the structure or Constitution right. 72.184.174.199 (talk) 04:07, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

To any possible legal experts here on the wiki
Once Trump is out of office he loses all presidential protection and is able to be sued by civilians. Now there is the fact that mountains of people will be suing Trump for various reasons and he will be forced to pay all back taxes. Who would be the first group to sue him? There are the women he sexually assaulted, the Musicians union, a German bank and numerous other people/groups.

Trump facing a lot of legal action against him would require a lot of legal resources and lawyers. If you are a lawyer- do you know who gets to take Trump to court first. I am not a legal expert by any means so that is why I am asking.

By the way, if you are a far right troll spewing nonsense- I do not need your "input". --Channel 48 WDEM-TV3 (talk) 21:45, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Caveat: I'm not a lawyer. Trump, Inc. would probably like to have an orderly first-come, first-serve series of lawsuits just to bog things down. That's not the way it works however. Trump is facing immediate lawsuits from multiple plaintiffs in multiple jurisdictions as well as possible state-level or city-level criminal charges brought by AGs or DAs. Scotland has also indicated that they might be seizing Trump properties if they find evidence of fraud in tax filings. They're all going to pile in whenever they're ready, which is probably close to immediately after inauguration day because they've all had plenty of time to prepare at this point. Each court can receive multiple lawsuits per day, as they do so normally. Individual judges generally set their court calendars as the see fit. Should be exciting to see it when the Schadenfreude hits the fan. Bongolian (talk) 00:48, 29 November 2020 (UTC)


 * What really gets me about these far-right trolls who can't wrap their heads around the fact that most of us don't want tRump as our president is how they accuse Biden of "stealing" the election, but are excited by the prospect of electoral/military/police coups (which aren't half as likely as they'd like you to believe) and have suddenly decided that democracy is now evil and fraudulent because their precious orange messiah said so, ergo it must be true! -- Goatspeed. 00:54, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Then there is the fact that Trump refused to pay police officers in multiple jurisdictions after they guarded his superspreader events rallies (not that I feel sympathy for the police). He will owe cities plenty of cash --Channel 48 WDEM-TV3 (talk) 02:23, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * And there's a fair amount of debt that will become due next year. OTOH, being a former President has always been fairly lucrative.  It didn't seem to do the Clintons' finances any harm.  And most former Presidents don't have Trump's fan base.  Trump will probably spend much of the rest of his life addressing rallies filled with people he seethes with contempt for.  That may be justice enough.  Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 07:42, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

the real question is that if trump looks like he might be in the frame for something, which of his kids will be made to take a fall? i thinking only barron is safe AMassiveGay (talk) 13:26, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I am disappointing? (EDIT: Nevermind, I was fucking dumb, disregard this)
Whoa, what's going on here? I've been away from here for a while and I came back: I noticed a user said "Aaronmichael5 is truly disappointing." a few days ago. What did I do? Someone please clarify cause unless I'm fucking retarded (possible) I missed it. aaronmichael5 21:43 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, don't worry about it. It's a thingie that inputs the name of whatever user is viewing it. I saw it as "Twodots is truly disappointing."
 * Nobody has a beef with you. At least not to my knowledge. Twodots (talk) 22:49, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, lol, nevermind, I get it now. Someone put that tag in that just shows your username. I feel dumb now, that got me good. Makes sense now why I was so "polarized" on the poll. aaronmichael5 21:52, 28 November 2020 (UTC).
 * The whole joke was just more trouble than it's worth, honestly.-Flandres (talk) 22:53, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Why does everyone think that refers to them specifically? I once had someone give an extremely rude response to me and briefly block/demop me over it, but then restored me when I explained that I wasn't using it to refer to them. -- Goatspeed. 00:59, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I created the poll. In retrospect, I should've had a poll option at the bottom which said "oh, I get it now" or something to that effect. CoryUsar (talk) 01:09, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I admit that I am so damn stupid. Like I said, I am paranoid and my paranoia does affect my judgement. Hey medicine can only do so much. --Channel 48 WDEM-TV3 (talk) 02:09, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Rationalzombie, seriously, we are just joking around with you (making light to falling for the USERNAME joke). You don't have to feel so embarrassed or paranoid. We've all fallen for the USERNAME schtick, I have more than once. You're one of the most pleasant and likeable users here. Seriously. Relax. Shabi  DOO  03:22, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it caught me when I was scrolling down the other day. Best part is I hadn't edited in like a week; so I was like, 'What the fuck did I do when I *wasn't* here?'. Gotta be honest, good prank.--NavigatorBR (Talk) - 07:10, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, you got me for 5 minutes :p I was wondering which one of my 10 edits had garnered such a strong response from the mob. UninspiringNickname (talk) 15:32, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Gun nuttery
[https://mises.org/wire/right-own-gun-isnt-just-americans Private firearms ownership decentralizes coercive power, transferring some of it from the state to the private individual. Naturally, political regimes oppose this. But even many non-Americans embrace private arms.] God bless the Second Amendment. 2001:8003:59DB:4100:64BB:E3AB:3AF2:AF83 (talk) 09:36, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * My man, do you have anything better to do with your time? This is the RationalWiki equivalent of a shitpost. The only reason I'm responding to you is so I can somehow convince you to change your behavior, and put the time you spent towards something more productive, like learning a new skill. IveBeenFrank (talk) 10:38, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * But don't you know? By spamming barely coherent copypasta at us, this BoN is owning us with facts and logic! Not really, he's just trolling. After all, it's not like small arms are outdated in an age where the military can literally bomb you out of existence with a remote controlled plane! Oh wait, they are.  13:00, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Our resident far right troll speaks again! Anyways, heavily armed military with a bunch of expensive toys vs. uneducated right wing nuts with small arms. I doubt the uneducated right wing nuts would stand a chance. --Channel 48 WDEM-TV3 (talk) 15:50, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I mean, you can fight back, kind of sort of, but not with small arms. I stand my belief that small arms are more or less outdated in modern asymmetrical warfare. 16:08, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * But the military is pretty much composed of right-wing gun nuts. HairlessCat (talk) 17:53, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Sort of. Because of the underlying value system, right-wingers are more likely to join the military than centrists or left wingers. However, it would be a mistake to think they're the primary or even majority demographic. 18:03, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It really depends on the organization level. Massive guerrilla movements are tricky to stop even if just at a small arms level. On the other hand, say what you want about Waco, but one thing that did effectively demonstrate is how even SWAT team level gear can effectively overwhelm a small size nutty group with a huge stockpile of small arms. In America, see no chance of guerrilla anything coming from the 2A crowd given the typical non-fitness level of the 2A fanatics and given how much whining the right-wing did over even a small inconvenience, such as a small lockdown due to a massive pandemic. 72.184.174.199 (talk) 18:25, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Naked URLs

 * Listen Twodots, I appreciate your enthusiasm, but I've given you advice on how to fix some of those naked URLs yourself instead of just bringing them up here in the bar (where we are supposed to gather for drinks and general | shit-talk...according to your own words you're too young to drink, but shit-talk has no age limit so you're still welcome here). You can tell pretty well from the URL of the link its source. In other words, if it's for instance a more or less respected news site. You are able to fix such URLs yourself. Please try. 18:29, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I can move the list to wherever if you don't want it in the bar. Twodots (talk) 06:05, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Ideal would be to put it in your userspace. You could create for instance a page called User:Twodots/Naked URLs and put them there. You could also link to it from or userpage or something. 08:27, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That way it wouldn't be automatically archived either due to no recent enough activity, as would happen here in Bar. 08:28, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Great idea. :D Twodots (talk) 15:48, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Twodots (talk) 15:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Twodots (talk) 15:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Concerning
Second Thought received a visit from the DHS over his police brutality video. — Oxyaena Harass  19:13, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I am guessing that someone reported it as a threat of some sort. Most logical explanation to me. --Channel 48 WDEM-TV3 (talk) 02:15, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I don’t get it, his videos are shadowbanned?! I saw both of those videos FROM MY SUBSCRIPTION FEED. Was it beacuse I am subbed with notifications on or something? 04:38, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The thread explains everything. — Oxyaena Harass  15:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Uploading a YouTube video on police brutality is enough for the DHS to come to your home? If that's the case, we should have hundreds of YouTubers all over the US upload police brutality videos and overwhelm the DHS with "security threats". I'll start: THE POLICE SHOULD STOP KILLING INNOCENT BLACKS!Tea will be served upon your arrival.45.41.132.57 (talk) 23:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Passoã
Anybody ever tried it? I think I got a bad bottle. Mine tastes like medicine and ass.-Hastur! (talk) 16:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * What is it? 17:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Passionfruit liqueur-Hastur! (talk) 17:21, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * i suspect the initial 'ooh passionfruit' is quickly replaced by an urge to vomit. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:19, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not really drinkable. I was thinking it'd be something like limoncello but passionfruit instead of lemon.  I'm gonna return it and see if they can give me a bottle from a different batch, just to be safe.-Hastur! (talk)  19:27, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * probably great in a cocktail of some kind AMassiveGay (talk) 19:29, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah. The very concept of "Passionfruit Liqueur" screams "mix me with something else, then I'm great, but I'm an ingredient, not a tipple on my own". Kencolt (talk) 21:39, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

First female Vice President of the United States
While the first female President did not happen, the first female Vice President is still one Hell of an accomplishment. I know that was not the top spot but still impressive. --Channel 48 WDEM-TV3 (talk) 15:50, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh wow we have a female vice president?!?!-Hastur! (talk) 17:45, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The US does, yes.Twodots (talk) 18:22, 26 November 2020 (UTC)


 * And a black one. And an Indian-American one. -- Goatspeed. 19:38, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That makes the accomplishment even bigger. I cannot wait till January when the orange turd is flushed from the White House and some dignity is brought back with the new administration. --Channel 48 WDEM-TV3 (talk) 21:27, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Make America Decent Again! -- Goatspeed. 02:41, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * two cops in the white house. So progressive. — Oxyaena <font color="Red">Harass  03:55, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm confused as to what you mean by that, Oxy. Twodots (talk) 05:46, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Joe Biden was a major force in the 1994 crime bill, and Kamala Harris was a prosecutor in California, responsible for pressing alot of people in prison for minor crimes. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 2001:8003:59db:4100:c016:b567:1ba1:3058 / talk
 * Oh, ok. Twodots (talk) 17:41, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I added Biden's Senate record on crime legislation to his article a few weeks ago. 17:59, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The comparisons between Biden and Harris in general (not in response to the latest additions to Biden's article here) are a lot of sleight-of-hand. This lays it out well, but to summarize; Biden supported these measures when leaders of minority communities explicitly called for them (think Fernando Ferrer, David Dinkins, Chuck Rangel, Maynard Jackson), and indeed were some of the loudest voices calling for them. Harris 1. took her tough-on-crime attitude to the DA and AG office long after people realized that went wrong, 2. was ridiculously dirty by the standards of anyone this side of Mike Nifong, and 3. has aggressively used her background to deflect criticism for 1 and 2. Notice she (like Sonia Sotomayor, who never met a conviction she didn't love before becoming an admittedly steady hand as a Supreme Court justice) never actually disavowed her own illustrious track record of concealing evidence and having her office cover it up. There's a reason she never even made it to the primaries, she'd best help the Democratic Party by being quiet; that is, after all, the first rule of being an attorney, to know that when you're winning you shut the hell up. The Blade of the Northern Lights (<font face="MS Mincho" color="black">話して下さい ) 03:02, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

First woman does not matter, what matters is what will happen once they are in office. I feel like people keep forgetting that part.Machina (talk) 21:05, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The common rendition of the quote is the vice presidency is not worth a bucket of warm spit. That's the censored version; the real version, from Franklin Roosevelt's first Vice President (John Nance Garner), is that it's "not worth a bucket of warm piss". Let us hope that holds true. The Blade of the Northern Lights (<font face="MS Mincho" color="black">話して下さい ) 06:48, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I see civilization still has its malcontents. Here's a fresh idea: The American VP is actually President of the senate. It has been tradition that the president pro tempore acts in the President's absence. The trick is, it may be possible to force the majority leader to accept the President's legislative schedule. So for example, the VP could force a vote on such things as judges, or legislation supported by democrats and a minority of republicans. I would really love to see Moscow Mitch lose his shit over that.Ariel31459 (talk) 21:14, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Monolith
Where would fit as 'vaguely missional' (possibly along with 'the non-rusting iron pillar' etc). Anna Livia (talk) 18:32, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Only the cries of "alien" would qualify I guess. Based on the few close ups I see of the structure I actually don't even think the term "monolith" (stupidly so common even in mainstream media) for this is correct. Apparently this was three aluminum or stainless steel sheets simply riveted together into a triangle. That's not a "monolith". That's actually a rather simple artwork thingie. (Whoever did this should've found their own land to do it on instead of littering BLM land.) 72.184.174.199 (talk) 03:49, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * BLM land that is held greedily by the government without anyone else being able to use it. Like, for example, giving it back to the indigenous people of Colorado, or, letting people homestead there. If you're not occupying it, and using it, it's not you're land. — <font color="Purple">Oxyaena <font color="Red">Harass  13:41, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "... it's not your land." Nowhere Man (talk) 14:45, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That came out of nowhere. BLM doesn't quite work like that (in many cases for instance you can rent the land for cattle grazing, and if you are Cliven Bundy and make a big enough stink apparently you don't even have to do pay the rent. Hurrah white privilege.) At any rate, saving the BLM debate for later, the sculpture was located in Utah -- if Redditor sleuths are right, it's in an area just east of Canyonlands National Park (which although "remote" seems reasonably accessible by a couple of nearby 4WD roads, as found by a TV channel report). My best guess is that this was a little "marker" to indicate where a certain group of people gathered for a party, burn, bonfire, or some other sort of desert shindig. (My guess is also that whoever put this up is pissed off about all the attention and tourism this thing is now getting.) 72.184.174.199 (talk) 14:52, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If Utah, I'm blaming Mormons. They don't drink, so their teens have to get extra creative when it comes to getting fucked up. CoryUsar (talk) 16:29, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It is 'a different category of thing' to the Georgia Guidestones
 * The other place already has an article on on the subject (and discussion on the talk page). Anna Livia (talk) 16:39, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * we all know at the root of all this is something soul crushingly mundane, which is obviously proof of whatever strain of arse we've nailed our colours and the sheeple need to wake up to. or mole people. they are he cause of everything, and not a code word for jews. but they are jews. and lizard people too. or antifa facists. probably all of that. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:39, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Meh, I prefer oldschool anti-Black racism.
 * "Stop being a burden on society!"
 * "Ok, I worked my ass off and now have a small business!"
 * "How dare Black people own businesses when there are White people who don't! That's wrong; here's a burning cross!"
 * "Fuck it, why bother trying to make something of myself? I'm just going to be stuck being poor no matter what."
 * "Ugh, why do you have to be such a burden on society?" CoryUsar (talk) 21:10, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It do be like that. Twodots (talk) 21:39, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Will add another 'vanishing unofficial monument'. Refrain from 'comments unbecoming to the Saloon Bar.' Anna Livia (talk) 16:49, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm betting viral marketing scheme. 17:52, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * For this or the metal object(s)? Anna Livia (talk) 19:46, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Query
I've yet to receive an answer on why progress is measured by how Westernized a society is. — <font color="Purple">Oxyaena <font color="Red">Harass  04:10, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That wasn't the premise you put forward. Also, I think these sorts of discussions ought to be moved to debate-space in the future. 04:23, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Your alternative? Enlightenment values aren't specifically Western, any more than are the laws of time and motion, but for various historical reasons they came up there first. They aren't the end-all on philosophy (I rather enjoy reading Zhuangzi, especially since I know better than to fall into the trap of classifying him as a Daoist, and the Mingjia philosophy of Huizi), but they were the first to get it right; the only options after that are to reinvent the wheel or cite who came before you. Given how the Curse of Knowledge works, you can't unring a bell so you'll naturally build off what you've already heard. And there are plenty of ways to express humanity; hell, as an example, I wish the headgear of the Yi people would catch on outside their culture, I'd happily don their getup over formal Western hats. From one ASD sufferer to another, I know how easy it is to want to fight back against a world that won't understand you. To cite a certain Canadian trio, as I often do, you can only grow the way the wind blows or be broken down blow by blow; easier for me to say, since I've been fortunate enough to come from a famil that cares about me (which a disturbing number of people denigrate me for, because of... something) and make something of a living for myself, but since my degree is in history I can't think of many (any?) times in history or place today I'd be any more able to function in the world; is there a place/time you think you'd be better off in? (Genuine question, and lay it out in as much detail as you see fit) Would be fine with this being moved to debate space. The Blade of the Northern Lights (<font face="MS Mincho" color="black">話して下さい ) 04:45, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I mean, to be technical, a number of (not all) enlightenment ideas were proposed by earlier scholars in Africa and the Middle East. 05:24, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, obviously it wasn't only Western Europeans who came up with each individual idea. I studied Ibn Sina and Ibn Rushd (better known as Avicenna and Averroes in English) enough to know their contributions to thought in medicine and jurist philosophy, respectively; I once sided with Ibn Rushd over Rumi, since even though I appreciate the cultural influence of Sufis there's a lot of PIDOOMA there. They got a lot of the right ideas, both from the ancient Greeks and Romans as well as finding many of their own, but none of them ever put it all together. Indeed, the next big Muslim scholar after Ibn Rushd was Ibn Taymiyya, who produced fatwas legendary for their utter rantiness (while they made some sense at the time of writing, when Mongol armies took over and leaders claimed to be converts, today they mostly serve fundamentalist nut jobs who selectively quote them to justify beheading people on the streets). There's no Arabic equivalent to Jeremy Bentham or John Stuart Mill (though one Bentham, anyway, was probably all the world could handle, waiting to see if genetic tests can find if he had The Big A!), and while that doesn't mean all good values emanate from Western Europe it does mean that people living in Western Europe were the first to make it into a coherent school of thought. (Nonetheless, I'd rather read the Zhuangzi over Mill any day!) The Blade of the Northern Lights (<font face="MS Mincho" color="black">話して下さい ) 05:44, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "Progress" is usually used to assert the transition from an imperfect state to a quantitatively better state. Since conservative cultures tend to remain the same over long periods of time, it should surprise no one that non-western cultures tend to make progress very slowly, if at all. This is because progress in general, in culture, in sustainability, in material acquirement, is driven by progress in technology. Technology matters, even in the arts: e.g., the piano is hard to beat as an orchestral instrument. In the west we have a lot of technology, and often find it pulling the rug out from under any semblance of culture to which one might become accustomed. Some find themselves so confused by the rapid pace of cultural transformation in the west, they start to look longingly at the more slowly paced societies elsewhere in the world. That's fine man. It reminds me of the times I could go on vacation to such places. Ariel31459 (talk) 05:51, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * So..... "West is best," apparently. Most of philosophy is PIDOOMA, including this wiki's sacred liberal/rationalist philosophy. There comes a point where the only honest position to take is that it's all bullshit to begin with. — <font color="Purple">Oxyaena <font color="Red">Harass  06:10, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * To be quite honest, I'd rather live as far away from the rest of humanity as possible without being coerced to abide by the law of the state. I just want to be free, I don't care about all that shit related to quality of life and such. I`m an individualist anarchist, I want what I want and that's all there is to it. What I want is to find an empty plot of land and build a homestead there. The state's defense of private property (even on unused land) is what's preventing me from doing so. If no one's using that land, it shouldn't be there's. That's just wasteful. Usufruct is a much more just conception of property than what we have now. Occupancy and use. This would also prevent parasitism like absentee landlordism, since you can't collect economic rent on land you don't occupy and use yourself. — <font color="Purple">Oxyaena <font color="Red">Harass  06:18, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I once thought like that, but then I stumbled across Genie (I wrote almost all of that article). That made me realize the extent to which isolation can completely destroy a human. If anything, since I cut a fairly imposing physical figure I'd stand to gain from an anarchist world, but the knife could just as easily be piercing my heart as well. If I was an orangutan (no, not that orangutan) I'd be in heaven, but that's just not how the human brain is wired. Under almost any other circumstances, I'd be the man on the corner living out another day for you and me in paradise (references well beyond my years, but I liberated an Abacab vinyl from a thrift store). I wish it weren't so, and goodness knows the people who call me friends have given me enough reason these last years to want to become the 21st Century Leatherman (I've even visited a few of his caves!), but I can't pretend it's made me a better person. Fighting basic biology will only work against you, and by the same token if you're having a hard time finding someone to call a friend don't be so hard on yourself; you're just playing the hand you have. No culture I know of would be easier on me, anyway, and indeed a lot more would be far harder on me. The Blade of the Northern Lights (<font face="MS Mincho" color="black">話して下さい ) 07:10, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "Most of philosophy is PIDOOMA, including this wiki's sacred liberal/rationalist philosophy. There comes a point where the only honest position to take is that it's all bullshit to begin with." Err... No. It's a bit more complicated than that. Firstly, even within the "West" there are countries that are so Conservative or Right-wing that they refuse to progress. Cough the United States cough. Secondly, these attitudes and alignments haven't been constant, historically speaking. Rather they ebb and flow based off of internal and external attitudes, politics, and group decisions.  14:08, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Human rights originated in modern Iran, with Cyrus the Great. Your opposition to secular humanism isn't because it's western, it's because you are trying to be edgy trash. 13:41, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Human rights is a modern, Enlightenment innovation. Do not place modern constructs onto ancient cultures who had no conception of them. The Cyrus Cylinder is hardly any different from the normal statements kings of that era put out when gaining power. Here's a video for your stupid ass: . — <font color="Purple">Oxyaena <font color="Red">Harass  14:26, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * By the logic that Human Rights are a "Western" thing, should we not feel bad about abusing the rights of non-Western peoples because, hey, they didn't have those rights to begin with? What kind of nonsense is this? CoryUsar (talk) 17:59, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "Human Rights" refers to a sheaf of ideas that has evolved over time. We are forced to view them from a western prospect. If we were ancient Greeks, we would all know what our rights were. Even today, the constituents have been modified over very short periods of time. The end is the just flourishing of our society. It is the means to that end that can lead to ambiguous circumstances, when certain rights conflict. This austere reality is often overlooked, or waved away as unimportant. One might as well be debating the meaning of "human nature."Ariel31459 (talk) 20:44, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * As explained by that video I linked, the Greeks lacked a conception of rights, instead focusing on justice and order. It is folly to dissociate elements from their historical-material conditions. — <font color="Purple">Oxyaena <font color="Red">Harass  17:33, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It is pointless to expect nascent concepts to express the same criteria as much later, more developed systems.Ariel31459 (talk) 21:20, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That's because they're not the same concept. — <font color="Purple">Oxyaena <font color="Red">Harass  14:15, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

The normative language of rights is of recent and Western origin. But the content of rights (the norms that language expresses) is much older and more widespread. For example, the right to life versus the moral prohibition on killing.2001:4530:2:201:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFE6 (talk) 21:55, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * OK ok, ok, I was baited by the title. Query is such a good preface to a real question.  Human rights did not somehow originate.  It's complex.  Oxy, please list a few of the rights you mean, because yes, I agree, a spread of cultures has a spread of acceptance over every individual expression, and it would be easy to show cultures accepting their individuals as part of their makeup.  The idea that human rights originated in Iran with Cyrus is a really nasty co-opt of the broad idea of human rights.  I am on your side, but I don't know what you're trying to say.  Using monolithic social structures is what "they" do.  Look for a structure that necessarily values each individual, you'll see broader but still diverse versions of cultural acceptance of dysphoric and divergent members of their community, or the nonsensers gonna tell you it's nonsense.  Human rights are cultural value, they are not inborn, which, if you think about it makes them more valuable and worth fighting for, but I know who you're talking to, don't say that.  I'm totally with you on fighting the idea that an individual is diminished by any physical or mental or societal divergence.  I'm really frustrated that the idea that a kid who doesn't express strictly gender normatively in the midwest gets absolutely socially panned.  Not even to their face, to every adult around that kid.  I'm straight like Randy Savage, Eddie Veddar, or fucking Tommy Townsend and I still get questions from my family about sexual orientation and my long hair.  The plains midwest is culturally inept.  Your confidence is not reliant on them.  Rage, lady, rage.  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:13, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm from New England, and though no one assumes I'm gay my long hair is apparently a crime against humanity here too. Even bastions of progressivism have their strict orthodoxies, despite their protestations to the contrary. But I'm certainly not cutting my hair off, and hopefully will never have to go David Allan Coe and resort to abusing performance-enhancing rugs. The Blade of the Northern Lights (<font face="MS Mincho" color="black">話して下さい ) 04:12, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

A video summarizing my basic views
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vv4IYw2n87M And yall say anarchism is utopian. — <font color="Purple">Oxyaena <font color="Red">Harass  13:32, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-dX1mnSbrU Thanks to my restricted mode on school computers here is something more people can watch. 104.225.183.70 (talk) 14:09, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wseyWRBWzyM Oh hey I can spam up the saloon bar with boring, longwinded rants about nothing too! CoryUsar (talk) 15:54, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

The closer definitely got the point. 104.225.183.70 (talk) 16:37, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Bronze ratings
I think we have way too many bronze rated articles on this site. I just did a quick count and, as of this writing, we have 1,002 Bronze articles (just surpassed 1,000 in the last 48 hours), while we only have 83 silver articles and 41 gold/cover story ones (Not counting the 13 nominations for gold/cover).

I think we need to shed the bronze rating down a bit: I've noticed that there are a few bronze articles that, in my opinion, shouldn't be bronze. The Jerry Coyne page is a good example: nothing wrong with it, but I'm just not sure it's detailed/relevant enough to warrant a bronze rating. There are also some bronze articles that should be upgraded to silver: two examples are Illuminati and the Flat Earth. I brought up upgrading the Flat Earth to silver on the talk page but haven't gotten any kind of response yet. Aaronmichael5 23:13, 1 December 2020 (UTC).
 * Probably true, but I will defend my bronze pages fiercely. 00:28, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not unheard of to demote an article out of bronze. I'm sure that there are quite a few such articles here that need considerable work, rework and update. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 01:43, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thinking some more about it, I think on the bronze article list, there's a lot more articles that should be silver than ones that shouldn't be anything at all.
 * Here's a list of bronze articles I think that should be silver: COVID-19 pandemic, Dennis Prager, Flat Earth, Global warming, God, Illuminati, Religion, United States World War I, World War II
 * Here's a list of bronze articles that should be demoted (please note that I am not criticizing/arguing against said articles: they just don't seem high enough quality to be bronze): Fun:Conservative Monopoly (It's literally just a picture, calling this an "article" isn't even justified), Crocoduck, Godlike Productions, Jerry Coyne, Jean Meslier, Johnson Amendment, Prison
 * There's probably a lot more than that but that's my list for now. Aaronmichael5 01:29, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Go for it. Demote the articles that you think are unworthy of bronze, and start a talk page topic for proposing silver for the articles you think are worthy. Many of us monitor the recent changes and can give you feedback. 04:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

FYI, there was actually a case of a gold article being demoted to bronze, and subsequently improved (Herbal supplement), but not back to gold. Rather than wholesale demotion of bronze articles, it might be better to pick out bronze articles, one at a time, that one thinks that one can improve and make a call for assistance in improving them. Bongolian (talk) 05:49, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Bronze rating articles are uh:
 * Not stubs
 * Follow style manual
 * No in-jokes
 * Properly referenced
 * Does not largely consist of other people's quotes.
 * Obvious missionality is not a requirement for Bronze, that only starts entering the requirement for Silver articles, which is as is pretty regulated and that makes sense. The policy page for ratings is RATE. I'm fine with a larger amount of Bronze articles, it means that we have plenty of good pages :p. That said, if pages aren't properly getting tagged as bronze, then please do take them out of Bronze based on the criteria above, but relevancy is not a valid criteria to remove Bronze. 12:55, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * So, with that in mind, anybody know of an demotable article?--HedvigsenSkreonk here 08:37, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

200,000 Daily Infections
We're 6 days out from Thanksgiving (USA), and reached 200,000 confirmed infections. Though the graphs seem to be curving, infections are still extraordinarily high basically everywhere. 1 in 1,000 people has died in South Dakota and North Dakota. Essentially Americans realized a vaccine was imminent and decided to just go ahead and get infected. 300,00 deaths by Christmas now seems tame.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 00:47, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

There might actually be hope for Fox News
https://news.yahoo.com/shameful-fox-host-scolds-colleagues-234944756.html

At least someone grew a spine and spoke out against the Trump supporting on the network. I am totally shocked. --Channel 48 WDEM-TV3 (talk) 00:55, 3 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Just you wait... it won't be long before the others on Fox News network label him a RINO and shun him as a heretic- just like some of the MAGA crowd in Georgia are already (fortunately) doing with Perdue and Loeffler for no reason. -- Goatspeed. 04:26, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

"This may be the most important speech I've ever made...." ~Cadet Bone Spurs
President Trump's speech on the November election. 2001:8003:59DB:4100:70B5:65F6:F59A:D5D (talk) 01:25, 3 December 2020 (UTC)"
 * Or it could be the most bullshit you've ever spoken at one time..... "Increasingly detached from reality" Aloysius the Gaul 01:28, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 40+ minutes of listening to the man-child? Or that same amount of time doing literally anything else? I think I'll choose the latter. 01:39, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This is an important time in the history of the United States of America. What would you say a decade from now? "Nah didn't want to listen to it lol too long". 2001:8003:59DB:4100:70B5:65F6:F59A:D5D (talk) 01:55, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Not just too long. Too stupid. Ariel31459 (talk) 02:39, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Cool Story, Bro. At least you can sign posts now. Revolverman (talk) 02:04, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 10 years from now?? "It was bullshit hen, and it's still bullshit now" Maybe also "Trump's presidency marked the beginning of the end of the USA...   but it's still bullshit".  Aloysius the Gaul 01:59, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Trump's going to repeat the same conspiracies and nonsense he's been spouting since the election cycle began. I don't have to watch 40+ minutes of his rambling to know that. He's not that complex a person, and he's not really that important either. 02:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Not really that important? Don't talk about him for the next four years. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 2001:8003:59DB:4100:70B5:65F6:F59A:D5D / talk
 * Cool Story, Bro. Shame you forgot how to sign shit. Revolverman (talk) 02:08, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes &mdash; Unsigned, by: 2001:8003:59DB:4100:70B5:65F6:F59A:D5D / talk
 * The BoN didn't forget, he's just being a prick. Would that we could ignore the embodiment of everything wrong with this country, but sadly people seem to labor under the delusion that he matters, so we must resign ourselves to dealing with his effects. He's still not important enough to listen to for 40 minutes when I can predict what he has to say anyway. 02:16, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Trump has turned our country into a weird combination of a bad reality show and George Orwell's 1984. Glad that he will be gone. Trump can' do shit anymore considering that by the 8th, the certified results will be counted and Biden will be the official President-elect. --Channel 48 WDEM-TV3 (talk) 02:13, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * As an alternative, may I suggest this 1 hour video of crying baby sounds? This is basically the Trump speech in a nutshell. (And, true to today's disposable meme culture, 1 hour crying baby has way more views.) 72.184.174.199 (talk) 03:37, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Steven R. Gundry, MMMMMMDDDDDD
Does anyone know about this guy? He is a Mehmet Oz type quack doctor who promotes the "Lectin Free" Diet. My family is obsessed with his bullshit and tries to proselytize me with it constantly. Anyway, I think there should be an article on him, if there is enough interest. Here is some reading material:

his generic quacksite

A good article debunking his speculation

Redactedentity (talk) 10:23, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

"Defund the Police" was a Stupid Slogan
Opinion piece from Teh Graniud. Basically, The overwhelming majority of the public believes there's extensive racism in the police system and that something should be done about it, but as soon as they hear "Defund the Police" they lose interest. Many do agree with reducing the scope of the police by establishing separate departments, that for mental health cases you should the guy whose job description is "wrangling crazies" instead of the guy whose job description is "puts bullets in people", and many other things that are ostensibly meant by the Defund the Police crowd. Problem is, that's not the image that the slogan conjures up. CoryUsar (talk) 16:07, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, that is the problem with soundbite politics-there are of course exceptions, but in most cases little meaningful policy is conveyed by a trendy slogan. Of course, if you do not state clearly what you want your opponent gets to do it for you.-Flandres (talk) 16:10, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * At least put a good soundbite.
 * Save the Whales means ending whaling as well as reducing pollution into the oceans which works its way up the food chain. We may not know about every nuance of the policy, but we have a general sense of what the overall goal is.
 * Free Nelson Mandela means we want Mandela released from prison, and it implies we support his cause of ending Apartheid (though not necessarily his methods). It doesn't mean we are giving away a bunch of Nelson Mandelas to anyone who wants one. CoryUsar (talk) 16:24, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, why don't we make a better soundbite? Any ideas? Twodots (talk) 16:29, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know, as a suggestion...
 * Reform the Police
 * Take away their toys
 * Cops, not Killers
 * End Qualified Immunity (bit of a mouthful, slogans should avoid polysyllable words)
 * Rethink Force (actually I like this one, a lot of meaning in "force")
 * Hands off the Trigger
 * Help, not Hurt
 * Demilitarization Now!
 * Fund Internal Affairs! (OK, silly, but if more policing is good, then policing the police must be hyper-good) CoryUsar (talk) 16:32, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "Rethink force" is the best one I think. It already sounds like a good name for an activist group or something.-Flandres (talk) 16:35, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * As I've said before and it bears repeating, the only reason there is discussion of whether the slogan is good or not, is to avoid discussing the real issue; law-enforcement is too militarized and is unaccountable. But because conservatives always make bad faith arguments, they were literally also going to accuse people who support even a modicum of reform as "extremists who want black and brown people to kill you". Do you support they way we have centered our armed law enforcement around slave catchers? Do you support armed law enforcement killing indiscriminately? Do you support armed law enforcement harassing the populace with no accountability? Or do you support reorganizing police from top to bottom? Anything else is sealioning.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 17:45, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

That's cool and all, but we're thinking of slogans right now. Twodots (talk) 17:48, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * We already have a perfectly good slogan already. ACAB. — <font color="Purple">Oxyaena <font color="Red">Harass  18:01, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oxy, you've completely missed the point. Twodots (talk) 18:15, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Horseshoe theory strikes again, tsk tsk, "ACAB" is a slogan that is also heavily used by racist skinheads. 72.184.174.199 (talk) 18:17, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, why'd you add the second "already"? Seems a bit excessive. Twodots (talk) 18:18, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If the slogan is so bad that it dissuades would-be supporters, then it should be replaced. This isn't an argument over the slogan "Black Lives Matter", which literally means "the lives of black people have value" and the detractors have to do a lot of stretching to change the meaning to "black lives are more important than any other lives".  "Black Lives Matter" means that as a society, we should act as if Black people are people.  No, the slogan "Defund the Police" literally means "take funds away from the police", and its proponents are the ones who have to do the stretching to say "we want to demilitarize the police, specialize police services so the guy you call for your mentally ill father is not the same guy you call to put bullets into burglars, put the funding into social services so people don't turn to crime in the first place, etc".  The detractors can just say "defund the police means defunding the police". CoryUsar (talk) 18:31, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Twodots (talk) 19:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You find me a single person who honestly only dislikes the slogan "Defund the Police", but supports reallocating the resources we currently give to law enforcement into community programs that support a new form of policing, and I'll show you they're full of shit. "I can't breathe" didn't make people pay attention, "Say Her Name" didn't move the needle. The conversation is finally moving in a productive direction, stop trying to reach the people who were never gonna be in your court, and make the change necessary.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:48, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I was being sardonic, and horseshoe theory focuses far too much on superficial appearances, on the how and not the why. — <font color="Purple">Oxyaena <font color="Red">Harass  19:50, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Something like "It is both PROTECT and SERVE"? Aloysius the Gaul 19:53, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * @Rip Uh... the needle has been moving slowly for some time.  BLM is responsible for the rapid adoption of body-cams for the police, which has in turn resulted in quite a bit of footage of the police fucking up.  Not sure how much body-cams have actually reduced police cock-ups, but it's nice to actually see them in action whereas in previous decades they could literally make up any story they wanted rather than fitting the story to the actual footage of the event.  It's the videos, not the slogans, that are causing the change. CoryUsar (talk) 19:59, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * But even that isn't enough when they will literally lie even when the video evidence refutes their statements. Like this, or this and this too! The entire infrastructure of law enforcement must be changed, to regain the trust of communities. But yes let's debate slogans.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:15, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

If slogans matter as little you're as trying to argue, then why not go full bore with Fuck Tha Police, and have a kickass rally anthem to boot? I presume you'd agree that'd be poor campaign strategy, though? Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 01:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Bullshit argument. Fuck the police is incendiary and violent. Defund is call to action. Fuck off.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 04:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Fuck Tha Police is also the slogan of my campaign to give the LAPD chlamydia. CoryUsar (talk) 14:55, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Sounds like the name for a specifically themed stripper hiring service as well. 14:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't mind what adjectives you use to describe FTP as long as we're agreed that it's clearly possible for a slogan to be alienating and counterproductive. Once that's admitted, it follows that it's better to have a slogan that isn't alienating and counterproductive, and that arguments re. a slogan's wider appeal and impact are worthy of a good deal more serious consideration than you're currently giving Defund the Police. You're right that most of the arguments levelled against DTP are almost entirely in bad faith, but that doesn't even begin to excuse adopting a slogan that makes those bad faith arguments so fucking easy. If your slogan gives your opponents a cheap & easy attack line and forces you to waste a significant chunk of your time explaining why defund =/= abolish, then it's a bad fucking slogan.

Like I said last time this came up, contrast with summat like Murder By Cop Must Stop. It's literally impossible to argue against on its face or its substance, and it forces any cop apologist into weaselly prevarication re. specific instances of MBC, or its wider prevalence. I shouldn't have to point out that this is far more favourable rhetorical ground to be fighting on. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 01:14, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the standard weaseling is "but but but Black people kill so many more Black people than the cops do!", which ignores that A) while there's insufficient legal recourse, there's a lot more of it than there is for a death by cop, B) being killed by the police itself has a far, far more psychologically damaging impact on a society than death by random street violence, and this may surprise you, but C) those killings are ALSO the fault of a failed justice system, as those killings were the result of decades of inadequate access to the legal system which resulted in a culture of personally settling disputes through violence instead of going to the authorities. CoryUsar (talk) 04:36, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You're assumptions, and a lot of other users assumptions about this movement, is that the other side is debating in good faith or with logical reasoning. This is patently false. It doesn't matter what language you use, the other side will reduce it to the argument that they want to have, no matter what language is used. Fundamentally, those opposed to police reform don't oppose it because reformers don't use the correct language, they like the way the system is currently set-up. This isn't a new phenomenon, it has been present since America built police around the established system of slave catchers. Defund the Police, or even Abolish the Police, isn't incendiary and it isn't counter-productive, it is a policy agenda. It is also designed to make people uncomfortable and make them think about what role police actually has in their day to day life. Most (white) people have fleeting police interactions, while black and brown people are constantly interacting with a system that is designed to limit them.
 * Your "Murder by Cop Must Stop" is cute, but only addresses one portion of the police problem. If police stopped killing people indiscriminately would that help the solution? Yes. But the entire system is designed to oppress people; traffic violations, drug violations, vagrancy and loitering. All of these aren't enforced equally across racial and socio-economic lines. This doesn't even get into the issues of the criminal justice side. If you are finding people are unwilling to learn about the motivations behind a movement, they were never going to support it anyway. This entire exercise is pointless.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 17:45, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You're confusing a sizeable and determined minority of cop apologists and / or racists with most of the rest of America. There are plenty of persuadable people in this debate. By way of analogy re. importance of rhetoric, try and think of all those voters who would happily sign up for a higher minimum wage, better healthcare, and increased taxes on the highest earners, but who would run a mile from those ideas if you explicitly badged it as "socialism". Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 03:28, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * And there's some prerequisite of advertising to make something palatable? I get it, but saying "If we called it something else, maybe we could get behind it" is stupid. It's never going to be palatable, and the argument that it should be called something else is, actually, just understanding the situation and putting the cart before the horse.  If Black Lives Matter never breaks through the counter-rhetoric of "All Lives Matter" and the only fucking reason is rhetoric, society is lost.  Yeah, there are easier pills to swallow, but Black Lives Matter.  And the state level police/judiciary haven't been acting like they do.  Rhetoric inherently has no answer.  Black Lives Matter, what is so hard to understand there?  Defund the police, well, stop giving the police military shit, stop training them to shoot whenever they're uncertain, defund the police is rhetorical.  Everything that is rhetorical is wasteworthy. Rhetoric is very close to legalese, but boy howdy, you're lucky it doesn't cross that threshold, you maniac. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 06:41, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If politics was as simple as having a just cause, we would've Fixed The World long ago. You should probably rethink your position on the value of effective engagement and persuasion. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 00:34, 30 November 2020 (UTC)


 * This is my pet peeve with those modern-day slogans, what they convey only creates division instead of bringing people together for the same cause. The same could be said about Black Lives Matter. This slogan, being the way it is, spawned the infamous far-right All Lives Matter as a contrarian take against Black Lives Matter since some folks thought that Black Lives Matter was not inclusive enough. If it was not "Black Lives Matter", but a different slogan, "All Lives Matter" would not exist today. 188.60.40.193 (talk) 16:06, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The implication of "Black Lives Matter" is that to the police and legislators, they don't. Which is fairly straightforward really. The cops gun down black people if there's even the implication that those black people might be armed. They hold their fire for armed white people who just committed a double homicide. How anyone could look at that and not think that the cops do not believe that "black lives matter" is beyond naive, it is farcical. 16:21, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it's more of the optics. For the big-egos in the country, saying "Black Lives Matter" is translated as "Fuck you, black lives are the ones that matter." They then quickly go from "Well, my life matters too! I'm not doing great-I'm still poor!" to "Nah, fuck 'em. All lives matter!" Believe me, I've seen it happen. There's a lot of that pent-up resentment for their own suffering that goes down, especially in the South. IveBeenFrank (talk) 16:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * BLM wasn't the best slogan, but it was workable. People had to want the BLM slogan to be negative in order to make BLM a negative.  They didn't have to try too hard of course, but they still had to put in a bit of effort.  "Defund the Police" is already a negative, and it takes more than a few seconds of effort to make it a positive.  To the average person, if it was truly a positive, they would've had a more positive slogan to begin with.  People view the explanation as a lie, and people hate when they think they're being lied to, and they hate when they think someone has a hidden agenda. CoryUsar (talk) 18:07, 2 December 2020 (UTC)


 * You're all quite correct. We should return back to the old slogan: abolish the police. After all "defund the police" is the compromise and if yall are going to demonize that then police abolition must be returned back into the mainstream discourse.–Tuxer (talk) 18:48, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * How about we compromise on something else? I think you should be my slave.  You disagree.  So instead, we compromise, and you only have to be my slave on weekends.  Why are you complaining; we are closer to your position than mine!
 * Or perhaps sometimes a position is so utterly stupid that it doesn't deserve to be considered. Your "abolish the police" is one such example. CoryUsar (talk) 19:20, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Strawman. 19:23, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I responding to an obvious Balance fallacy, but now you are suffering from Fallacy fallacy. CoryUsar (talk) 19:31, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * If "defund the police" was your compromise, then whatever you want will never happen. Not in America, at least. Come to think of it, I can't think of a single Western country that lacks any substantive police force. The only country that comes to mind is Somalia, which doesn't bode well for your idea. IveBeenFrank (talk) 19:27, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, abolishing the police does work, sort of. It is however something of a new concept, so there would likely be unexpected hinks to work out. 19:35, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That's replacing the police, not abolishing them. If a department has corruption so thoroughly rooted into it, sure, replacing the department may be the best option.  But that doesn't mean the city won't have a police force of some form. CoryUsar (talk) 19:55, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You know, if you think about it, you might see why I said you were using a strawman argument before. 20:20, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * And if you thought about it, you might see why it isn't a strawman in the first place, but rather a calling out of the Balance Fallacy. CoryUsar (talk) 20:25, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Nah, it was a strawman. You engaged with a simplified and misrepresentative version of the opposing camp's arguments, which you have a habit of doing. That's a strawman. Additionally, you really didn't demonstrate any false balance, you made an absurd claim and then attacked that. 20:29, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, my point wasn't only that defunding the police isn't a good idea, but also that it exists outside the political mainstream, and is unlikely to gain any support or traction outside hardcore leftist circles, which aren't likely to expand significantly enough anytime soon to make such an idea politically powerful enough to even be featured in mainstream policy debate like UBI is. IveBeenFrank (talk) 20:33, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I mean, I would largely agree that such ideas would be unlikely to gain traction in the near future (barring unforseen events which modify those odds, because that's how odds work). However, my main point in my previous ping to you was that abolishing the police works... depending on how you do it. Abolishing the police and starting from the ground up is one way, or trying to find alternatives to the current system is another. It's a complex line of thinking with various offshoots, each with their own ideas on what to do. Treating them all as a monolith and then attacking that (arguably fictional) monolith is in poor form, and completely unproductive. 20:40, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I appreciate you remaining calm.
 * However, eliminating the police entirely is well outside the Overton Window, and most people would consider such a prospect to be absurd. Less absurd, in fact, than reintroducing slavery; slavery used to exist in the US, technically still exists if you include prison labor, and exists throughout the world and is omnipresent throughout history.  But far more prevalent than slavery are police forces, which exist in every single major country.  While Somalia is used as a joke around here about a paradise of a Libertarian country, they actually do have law enforcement of some form.  Go ahead, open up an open-air pork and pornography shop, see how long that lasts before a local gang shuts you down hard.  It's not what we would call "civilized", but roving gangs enforce rules on the public even if those rules may be arbitrary, which gang is in control can change multiple times in a month, and the gangs are little more than thieves themselves. CoryUsar (talk) 20:46, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You're arguing with a position I have not taken. Don't. 20:53, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * And you are complaining about me being dismissive of a fringe idea. CoryUsar (talk) 20:56, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Do I need to explain (again) why an idea being fringe is not a good argument against it? And, more to the point, I pointed out how you ignored the nuance and context of the opposing camp(s). I didn't complain that you weren't accepting the idea, I pointed out that your argument was bad. This is 101 level logic. 21:02, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * And this is the Saloon Bar, not a formal debate club. Since you want to be formal, in terms of claiming "abolish the police" is a bad idea...
 * Every "functioning" society on Earth has some form of law enforcement. Even tribal societies still enforce rules.  Using Inductive reasoning, it's probable that law enforcement is a prerequisite for a functioning society.  Ergo, a society without law enforcement is likely an absurd idea. CoryUsar (talk) 21:07, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that logic works. You associate our current version of police as law enforcement, and take that its establishment also means the end of any and all law enforcement. That's not self-evident or implied from the slogan "Abolish the police!" - it most likely advocates for a method of law enforcement different from our current conception of police. You yourself pointed out the variety of forms "law enforcement" takes. I say this not because I support defunding or abolishing the police, but because I want valid criticisms to be directed towards them, instead of some handwaving dismissals that only entrench the beliefs and wills of those who support such measures, and prevents them from changing their minds and seeing reason. IveBeenFrank (talk) 21:26, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Exactly. 21:36, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Except that if we were to discuss rethinking how policing should be accomplished, I actually would support some reforms. "Reform the Police" is something I can ge behind, it's something we've done rather routinely.  Eliminating police entirely with nothing to take their place is something we have not done and I don't believe it's something we can do without wrecking everything. CoryUsar (talk) 21:53, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * My gods, it's like arguing with a brick. All right, I'm going to list various ways "law enforcement" and "keeping the peace" has been implemented. Please note that I'm not arguing for any of them.
 * miltias.
 * soldiers.
 * lynch mobs
 * sheriffs and deputies
 * police
 * criminal enforcers
 * neighborhood watch groups
 * private security guards
 * Can we now move on from this rather painful conflation of idea and implementation? 22:41, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Is it me or is it that Trump is becoming more and more unhinged each day?
Okay before Election Day, we know that Trump was far from stable to begin with. Now since Election Day has passed his stability has seemed to go downhill. His speeches are extremely disjointed and any semblance of logic is gone. Am I the only one who thinks that with each passing day since election that Trump has becoming increasingly unstable? --Channel 48 WDEM-TV3 (talk) 02:38, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * More on Trump’s mental fitness: https://youtu.be/rELHUMNt4HM 04:56, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Was he ever hinged (or only ever in the sense of the Jacob's ladder toy)? Anna Livia (talk) 16:27, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Only if he gets a rat https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogZIITfJDnY 104.225.183.70 (talk) 13:51, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * *sniffle* i cried 16:38, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * its so emoshinal!!!11 104.225.183.70 (talk) 16:47, 1 December 2020 (UTC)


 * It's not just you. His trumpertantrum is growing more and more childish by the day as he begins to realize his pathetic lawsuits are a fool's errand. He has been pushing crackpot conspiracy theories about the integrity of Georgia's voting system that have been leading some of the MAGA crowd to cancel Perdue and Loeffler; in short, his immaturity is essentially suppressing his own party's base. Some Reps fear that he may continue peddling these theories when he comes to campaign for the senators later this week. -- Goatspeed. 21:22, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * He can smell his death coming soon with all the legal threats he faces once he loses presidential immunity. I just wonder if he'll take the easy way out come January. Revolverman (talk) 14:44, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

He was always unhinged. That misfiring brain was riddled from his New York party lifestyle. Waaaay too much coke, the drug of choice for deluded arseholes. In 15 years time, I hope the world doesn't look back and think, "Christ he's not as bad as the current chump in control." Remember when the world thought Bush jr was an embarrassment on the political stage? Or that Reagan was the low point of US politics? The downward trend of Republican Presidents is utterly terrifying. What next? and actual white sheet wearing racist, with a worryingly large collection of guns, the reading level of a 5 year old, with a fanatical belief "that the world is not only flat but God made spherical objects to test our faith." Cardinal Chang (talk) 23:03, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Conspiracy theory: Spherical objects do not exist. Twodots (talk) 23:59, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Conspiracy I pulled out of my ass: the moon is a tetrahedron! I honestly find it sad that due to being an RW editor and being clinically paranoid, I can easily understand the thought process behind conspiracy theorists. --Channel 48 WDEM-TV3 (talk) 01:16, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The constant portrayal of evil people as mentally ill is a disservice to those of us who are actually mentally ill. — <font color="Purple">Oxyaena <font color="Red">Harass  01:22, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I have Bi Polar II, a panic disorder and am barely hinged at the best of times and I ain't offended. Each to their own. And I am a fantastically evil person. AceModerator 01:58, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've been sectioned and medicated. In therapy groups and numerous sessions with me fanboy Dr Headshrink Poshboy M.D. himself. (and yes, I do call him that. Fuck sake, the man was a speaker at my wedding.) If you're suggesting I'm portraying someone with mental illness as evil or as a reason as to why they are evil. Then, as mentioned before, I think you might be a tad over sensitive. Cardinal Chang (talk) 11:37, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Conspiracy theory: the state of Wyoming isn't real. 104.225.183.70 (talk) 12:31, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Conspiracy theory: The state of Wyoming's existence is a ploy concocted by the sphere-ists to distract us from the tetrahedron moon and the fact that the lizard people were long ago murdered by the US government! Twodots (talk) 18:55, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Conspiracy theory: Aliens created Taco Bell to fatten us up so we can be eaten by them in their own restaurants on the Planet Toodles. --Channel 48 WDEM-TV3 (talk) 00:17, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I, for one, welcome our new taco-making alien overlords. Twodots (talk) 00:27, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I've heard that the aliens drive around in white vans and capture children to make kiddy-tacos so if you actually eat the alien made tacos you might be having like some soilent green fusion taco so you might want to add some hot sauce to it cause I've heard kiddy tacos has a bit of a gamey flavour. Of course you'd be super lucky if one of our alien overlords personally gave you any tacos at all. Their personal assistants are really protective gate-keepers! Shabi DOO  00:32, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, I heard that the government is driving around in black vans and kidnapping old people. Whadya think of that??!?
 * btw, I have evidence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ Twodots (talk) 05:10, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Conspiracy: Rat-Human hybrids are driving around in Ford Explorers and selling drugs to middle aged people. --Channel 48 WDEM-TV3 (talk) 19:07, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * As a drug-dealing manrat, I can say that this stereotype of us driving Ford Explorers is offensive. I drive an Ikea. Get your facts straight. Twodots (talk) 20:04, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Postcolonial feminism
I have to ask, why are hijabs oppressive? To many Middle Eastern women, wearing of burqas and hijabs can be seen as an act of rebellion against Western colonialism and imperialism. , if you will. To apply Western norms forcibly onto non-Western cultures is arguably an act of eurocentrism, and colonialist thinking.



Western feminism is Western-centric, as is arguments of rationalism, reason, and other Western metanarratives that are forced unto other peoples as somehow being universally applicable when that is not really the case. Rationalism should only be seen as a Western metanarrative, liberalism and mainstream feminism are likewise examples of Westernism. Of Westerncentric metanarratives that are forcibly applied to other cultures with radically different metanarratives. — <font color="Purple">Oxyaena <font color="Red">Harass  18:47, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * lol. whats next, you defend sharia? dhimmitude? FGM? 19:05, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't be thick. Hijabs or headscarves aren't equal to burkas. I don't think even Oxy is arguing that. IveBeenFrank (talk) 19:10, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait until you find out what her views on North Korea are. You are in for a ride. 19:37, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see how a garment which is not optional in several Muslim countries and virtually obligatory under pressure in many others which puts a highly disproportionate expectation that women as opposed to men make almost all of the efforts in terms of *LMAO* modesty *LMAO* is "empowering". Having spent half a year (where women covering up is NOT optional) in Iran and visited a dozen Muslim countries I can fairly confidently say it is mostly a form of female subjugation permitting male privilege and control wrapped up in family honour and gender power structures. The fact that the overwhelming majority of Muslim (or ex-Muslim) women who by, say the 2nd or 3rd generation of living in a secular society take their coverings off once social or familial pressure becomes minimal or goes away, tells you just how much of a "choice" it is for many women. Of course some who face no coercion do choose not to wear it, most do not once they truly truly truly have a choice. I find it most of the time extremely offensive that one gender is disproportionately expected to pay a price for male sexual harassment when the answer is clamping down on the harassment...not female discomfort and shame. If it is TRULY a choice I entirely respect their choice to wear it. It is rarely a choice in the Muslim world and a dubious choice for first generation migrants. There are many other ways to express your anti-colonialism without contributing to a mostly sexist custom. Shabi  DOO  19:30, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * -- Goatspeed. 02:23, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * They also live in an environment where headscarves are stigmatized. All too often progress is equated with Western cultural mores, which is Eurocentric and racist. My choice of topic, the hijab, was deliberate, mind you. I knew it would garner a reaction that would also serve my point well. Now, I`m not arguing in favor of a sexist custom, I`m critiquing general notions that Westernization equals progress. I acknowledge your response, Shabidoo, and you have valid points. Again, I`m not disagreeing with you here, I`m critiquing the foundations behind mainstream feminism. Nothing more, nothing less. — <font color="Purple">Oxyaena <font color="Red">Harass  19:46, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Have you ever considered that while there are bad reasons for the stigmatization, that there could be good reasons for it to be stigmatized? CoryUsar (talk) 19:50, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Good or bad has nothing to do with this conversation. If something is stigmatized, then people are more likely to act in a way that avoids said stigma. Good or bad has nothing to do with it. Also, may I offer a paper for your reading pleasure? — <font color="Purple">Oxyaena <font color="Red">Harass  19:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Hijabs are not inherently opressive, but you must admit they do have opressive utility. This question is not necessarily a black and white duopoly.-Flandres (talk) 19:55, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * (ec) Oxy is going to have to decide between defending China and the Uighur Muslims the Communists enslave. 19:53, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Good answer, Flandres. Black and white hats do not exist, there are only shades of grey. I`m trying to get people to think, to critically examine their own assumptions. — <font color="Purple">Oxyaena <font color="Red">Harass  19:59, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * But even though "hijab" also refers to the seclusion of women from men in the public square, that's not patriarchal? Ariel31459 (talk) 01:37, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Some Islamic countries are somewhat more open-minded (though I wouldn't call it anything approaching Western liberalism).
 * The most Islamic country our company has an office in is Malaysia. Head coverings (tudung to the Malay) are not required there, but most Islamic Malay wear it. Now, prior to the 1970s... no one really did. and from a lot of sources the reverberations from this is a huge reason why the hijab has been popularized in a lot of Islam nations.
 * From one perspective, Oxy is right -- the Shah was a dictator that, and he was pushing Iran towards Western style economic modernism... some people didn't like that, and the hijabs (which was banned in the 1930s) was a symbol of "the resistance"). From another perspective... the suppression of women angle is right, too, at least, viewed from the angle of the policies the Ayatollah implemented (in spite of women being a significant part of the revolution). A lot of Iranian women weren't happy about the fundamentalist bullshit being pushed by Khomeini to be honest so it's not a binary, some people were probably pissed at the Shaw and then also pissed at what Khomeini became. Those who were smart certainly didn't enjoy the fundamentalist cultural bullshit (among other things), and they (a lot of this involved the anti-intellectual  as well, but it is no surprise that anti-intellectualism comes hand in hand with repressive patriarchal policies designed to control the masses and disguised in religion).
 * Malaysia's not in the same boat, though. There is gender inequality in Malaysia but it is not anywhere near the same scale as most Arabic countries -- there are significant equality movements etc. The covering is in some ways half an identity thing borrowed from Arab Islam. There is a significant minority that don't wear any covering (and of course a significant minority that have gone Arab conservative and will yell on social media about these people of course, but whatever). But I'm not sure I'd automatically label the coverings as "patriarchal oppression" there. At least, no more or less than any other Asian society. The burqa type crap is very rare over there. I'd actually say this applies to a fair bit of Islam in Asia, which tends to be not quite as fundamentalist as Arab Islam (although IMHO probably too conservative for their own good).
 * This is why in some ways to me things like the headscarf bans are rather silly, because the problem of Islamic terrorism is a few radicalized fundamentalist idiots, and not a widespread modesty oriented statement of identity.
 * TLDR-Nuance,world not black white, etc. 72.184.174.199 (talk) 04:07, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Pro-tip
When somebody throws reason under the bus as merely "a Western metanarrative", there really isn't any need to engage further with the brainfarts thus derived. Reason is universal, and anyone denying that forfeits the right to be taken seriously.

This kind of guff wouldn't be tolerated if she was gibbering about homeopathy or astral projection, so stop indulging it because it's framed in political terms you feel more sympathetic towards. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 21:04, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You have to admit it would be pretty funny if you had an article claiming rationality was white supremacy. The fact one of your regulars actually thinks this is funny enough. Pathology (talk) 06:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This person's views are not at all representative of our mission. She's alienated almost the entire community with all the toxicity she constantly spews here on the SB. Heck, in our article on cultural relativism we even point out that pretending that "muh culture" is more important than women's rights and human rights is a bit much. -- Goatspeed. 06:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Why is progress so often equivocated to Westernization? Bullshitting about "muh rationality" still doesn't answer the question. — <font color="Purple">Oxyaena <font color="Red">Harass  13:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It's a mystery. People claiming Europeans contributes more to progress than Africans probably just hate the color of the skin. Pathology (talk) 13:56, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not that much of a mystery if only you apply a little critical analysis. — <font color="Purple">Oxyaena <font color="Red">Harass  14:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That ignores that something like 1/4 of American culture is African-American in origin, and probably another 1/4 Jewish. Depending on whether or not you consider Italians to be White (150 years ago they weren't!), now you've got a good chunk of American cuisine, plus Chinese food. CoryUsar (talk) 15:06, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You're conflating rationalism with rationality, there's a difference. Maybe don't resort to kneejerk reactions and assumptions and try to critically examine your own assumptions for once? — <font color="Purple">Oxyaena <font color="Red">Harass  15:08, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Man, just imagine how shitty music would be without black Americans. 20:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I just tried that as a thought experiment and broke my brain a little. I don't recommend it.

As the eejit who recently typed: "...as is [sic] arguments of rationalism, reason, and other Western metanarratives", you should probably be quiet. Unless, of course, you'd care to retract that particular bit of dumb hyperbole, in which case, knock yourself out.

In other news, people who actually know what they're talking about take it as given that the entire Western tradition runs right fucking through the Islamic Golden Age thanks to its preservation and translation of the ancient classical texts, and its significant innovations in maths and the natural sciences. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 00:09, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This article actually is a pretty good run-through of Islam's decline from a scientific and rational perspective. In a nutshell, at a time when the Christian West was reeling from the collapse of the Roman empire and regressing, Islam was busy translating ancient Greek text, which inspired a five century long "Golden Age" where from a scientific progress perspective they were outpacing the West. Unfortunately, various anti-rationalism, fundamentalist schools and leaders of Islam emerged in the 11th to 12th century, and came to dominate Islamic thought. Thus the spirit of inquiry was snuffed out. They have not recovered from that since.
 * It is worth also knowing that other nations were engaged in their own technological progress (an obvious example is that China from roughly the Han dynasty onward invented many a thing). In fact, Western civilization hasn't really been an over-dominant force in the world until the 19th century (a phenomenon known as the ). That's not a long time, to be honest. There is no reason why reason and rationality have to be a Western concept (because it isn't, and Western culture's two century dominance doesn't make it such). In fact, it is entirely possible given the large amount of anti-intellectual, authoritarian, and fundamentalist movements in the United States (with less religious but equally sectarian and authoritarian-oriented movements also present in many European nations) to envision scenarios where Western civilization scientifically relapses long-term, just like Islam did post-Golden Age. 72.184.174.199 (talk) 01:23, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I'm not sure that article does a particularly good job of explaining the decline. The giveaway is the bit where it states "The most significant factor was physical and geopolitical", devotes another ~50 words to the subject, and then launches off into a further ~4000 words on What's Wrong With Islam. There's plenty of food for thought in those ~4000 words if you were looking to kickstart a kind of Islamic Reformation, but much not much useful stuff if you're looking to make sense of why reactionary, fundamentalist voices suddenly became more persuasive at a given moment in history. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 02:48, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

You can't dissociate something from its historical-material conditions. This is why critical theory questions so called universal truths as rationality and other metanarratives. — <font color="Purple">Oxyaena <font color="Red">Harass  03:22, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not even mentioning the Indian philosophers. Much of Medieval and Roman thought had already been discovered and discussed in the Indian subcontinent hundreds of years before. It didn't have a direct influence due to the distance, but nevertheless was still developed. On Islam, I'd associate it's fall around 1700 with the weakening of the Ottoman empire. In the 16th century especially, the Ottomans, and by extension, Islam, were (rightfully) seen as a technological powerhouses, putting to use new weapons and battle tactics in warfare, and on the cutting edge of resource development and refinement, and architecture. They even developed Enlightenment-style tolerance ideals at a time when much of Europe was locked in religious conflicts. And finally,, ok? How universal truths were discovered and spread influenced history, but affected neither the validity nor the content of said universal truth. Galileo's discovery of the telescope changed the pace at which Europe made advances in the fields of science and engineering, but did not change the positions of stars in the sky, or how a telescope works. IveBeenFrank (talk) 11:36, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That's interesting. I'd never really given the Ottomans credit for much beyond conquest. Do you still agree that the fundamentalist strains within modern Islam were initially forged in reaction to the kickings that the golden age caliphates received?


 * Stand still, dammit. You first tried to say I was conflating rationalism with rationality, as though you had no intent of throwing reason itself under the bus, and how dare I think otherwise. I then pointed out you specifically listed "reason" alongside "rationalism ... and other Western metanarratives", and suddenly "rationality" is a "so called universal truth" again, which is where I first came in with a lolwut? Are you even aware you're doing this? Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 02:33, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * She might have embraced radical left contrarianism (Greyzone and similar). It's tempting trap for frustrated leftists. 02:48, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Another good example of non-Western Enlightenment-ish ideals is the Iroquois Constitution, which includes a ban on holding double offices, a mechanism for removing leaders, careful balance of power between member tribes, and even a political role for women. The Iroquois were in frequent contact with the Colonies, and their government ideals almost certainly influenced the shaping of the US Constitution. Native Americans are in this conversation too. 02:49, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, no discussion of Ottoman governance or philosophy like this can be complete without a reading of the Gülhane Decree, which draws upon the Quran to legitimize a reform program including rights to property and fair trial. It began the Tanzimat Reform Era of the Ottomans in 1839. 02:52, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * While it's possible that the Crusades and the Mongolian attacks encouraged fundamentalism, it clearly didn't have much influence on contemporary Islamic empires, and those to come. I personally associate the rise of Islamic fundamentalism with the 18th century rise of Wahhabism, a philosophy that became ultra-powerful once its leaders came to control the two holy cities. IveBeenFrank (talk) 11:29, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * you're all ignoring the fact that modern day salafism rose to prominence because of the failure of the arab secular powers to stand up to Western imperialism. Hamas was, for example, propped up by Israel against the secular PLO. — <font color="Purple">Oxyaena <font color="Red">Harass  17:30, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Great stuff, but you and I were talking about the epic clusterfuck of your position on reason. If it helps clarify your thinking on the subject, try explaining how you arrived at the above conclusion re. salafism without reasoning from a set of historical facts. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 02:35, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Well. As a woman, this has been a curious read. UninspiringNickname (talk) 13:29, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm a woman too. Postcolonial and third world feminism is a thing. I have a link for you: — <font color="Purple">Oxyaena  <font color="Red">Harass  13:59, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I read the first ten pages as a break from Calculus (to which sadly I must return), but promise I will read it to completion later. Yes, I know. And yet I think we are all still women, with a set of common lived experiences going back to the beginning of our existence as a species. The current colonialist issues will likely be but a short-lived chapter in history before some of those shared experiences cease to be. UninspiringNickname (talk) 14:50, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, and thank you for autopatrolled! I'm not sure what that entails, but I'll find out :-) UninspiringNickname (talk) 14:54, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * For clarification, this is not an argument for cultural relativism, it's a discussion of narratives of women in the third world in Western scholarship and how such narratives reduces most women around the globe into a single homogenous block. How relevant is white feminism to the third world? Do we really need women cops, executives, and presidents? All of whom oppress other women. Shouldn't we be focusing on abolishing the systematic structures that lead to further oppression and marginalization in the first place? — <font color="Purple">Oxyaena <font color="Red">Harass  17:49, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello again! Still haven't read the whole article, sorry :/ I'm having nightmares that are a mix of Tetris and integrals, which does not bode well for my sanity. I'll do it in the weekend, I promise! Out of curiosity, though, what do you think are the oldest and most enduring lines along which humanity has divided itself? UninspiringNickname (talk) 10:32, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Human culture is incredibly fluid, so things that hold accurate now weren't necessarily the same case ten thousand years ago. Too often people here in the West think that what is important in the West and holds true in the West is the same for other cultures, which is really chauvinistic. Stateless and pre-state cultures in general tend to be more egalitarian than more complex and hierarchical societies, but we've never really had actual anarchy, since the elements of the nomos, you know, family, gender, age, and such, tend to be found in most societies. It's really presumptuous to assume that anything is a given for human cultures. We now know that women were indeed hunters and warriors in the Stone Age. A good rule for anthropology is that for any given universal one posits for humanity, there is always at least one exception to it. — <font color="Purple">Oxyaena <font color="Red">Harass  10:47, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Haha, you got me :-) Then again, I'm usually transparent even when I try not to. I'd add another line of division to that one, even if they aren't fully independent of each other. Despite her brilliant work in linguistics, I can't say I'm as optimistic as Marija Jimbutas regarding equalitarianism. I wasn't referring just to Europe (the prominence of which is a very recent phenomenon), but rather humanity as a whole. And sure, there can be exceptions (and *maybe* there were anarchist communities at one time in the past, though I might also be displaying optimism, but it can't be wholly disproven), but I think there are overall overwhelming trends that have existed, still exist, and will likely continue existing for a long time. What do you think? UninspiringNickname (talk) 11:49, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, there are commonalities, but be careful not to generalize, especially not to overgeneralize. Anarchy is also different from anarchism, there are and were communities organized alongside anarchist principles, or were anarchist in practice, but they weren't anarchy. They still possessed the nomos characteristic to all human societies. I`m opposed to generalizing humanity as a whole, it's an abstraction with no material basis in reality, ie a spook. It only exists because we agree that it exists, that's the nature of all social constructs, like the state, god, morality, the nation, all of it. — <font color="Purple">Oxyaena <font color="Red">Harass  11:59, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

guys help me think of something funny to add on the astronomy portal
Template:Astronomy

Help. 04:35, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * For the list of articles "The final frontier". 04:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe "Star stuff" (i.e., from the Carl Sagan quote) would be better than "Risen above the earth..." Bongolian (talk) 08:23, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Uh... I think I messed up the template. Every page the template appears, I see on top of the content...  08:58, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Can someone fix it for me? I am new at this... (for example see any page with the template) 09:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * this is a cry for help. 11:28, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Two possible thoughts for the header: "Staring into space", or "It's not rocket science, it's..." 72.184.174.199 (talk) 15:15, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * there is not anything about funny astronomy. there isnt anything exciting either. its astronomy the only emotional response it can evoke is coma. this is why astrology exists - it enlivens the astronomer, as much as is possible for such people, preventing joints seizing up and a fatal catatonic state. staring out into the void is most unwise, it tempts our bodies to fall into the same life cycle as the universe. we do not have the universe's life span hence the catatonia. the mild annoyance experienced when told they are 'a typical aries', the eyes rolling and slight jerking of the head as they contemplate why people believe in such nonsense, is enough to gently keep their heart beating without overexerting themselves or even worse overstimulating them and they begin to babble on about the awe inspiring vastness of space. give them a nice cup of tea and make them have a bit of a sit down. remember to make sure star trek is on a nearby telly (its always on somewhere) when you leave these poor creatures. it'll keep their vitals ticking over till your next visit. with cuts to nasa, and light pollution, its the best we can do without adequate care in the community. check in once a week, make sure they are alright and brush the crumbs from their beards. its the least we can all do and is less of a chore than having to deal with your racist nan. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:16, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "It's full of stars!"CoryUsar (talk) 16:22, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * We live in a universe with naturally occurring fusion bombs, planets where the pressures are so great that it rains diamonds, a universe so vast that the human mind simply can not comprehend just how many galaxies are in existence, let alone the number of individual stars, and your thought is "boring"?! Is that a Poe?  Please tell me that's a Poe. 16:27, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * i can tell you what the human mind can comprehend, and thats the number of galaxies we will get visit. its similar to the number planets, which is in the ball park of number of stars we can reach. the human race will likely be extinct before we reach anywhere or anyone that might make the decades/hundreds/thousands of years worth technological advancements to be able make the million year long commute. anything coming the other way will either mean sudden unavoidable death or make me simply ponder if i should put a coat on or not.


 * its all to theoretical, involves too much quantum mechanics, expressed in complicated equations. these things do not effect how i see the world at my level of existence. the idea of the big bang makes my head spin, it'll likely mean little to me if it didnt. if it have any impact on mt at all, it will be fields and technology above my paygrade, and i'll happily reap those benefits while oblivious to them.


 * there is no human element. nothing relatable to me. no life. different strokes, different folks and all, im not so oblivious to not realise my interests will bore the shit out everyone else. i wont say astronomy and stuff, is boring. i'll say its not my thing. but lets be honest though, its hardly a white knuckle roller coaster of a ride. i do dislike this sense of 'awe and wonder' im supposed to feel about space though. the vastness of time and space can just as easily be meaningless as it is meaningful to nasa when they are trying to sell it it the public or inflate the ego of billionaires. but there is infinite variety in the worlds and lives of each and every individual i see on the bus, and i witness the wonder of creation seeing fox stop and size me up instead of instantly dashing off. thats only slightly diminished when you hear the awful screeching sound they make at night when they fuck. its life, jim, but a starship is not required.


 * my initial post was meant as a joke. no ill will was intended. i am well aware a lack of interest in the sciences and fields that are involved space is probably a minority view on a site such as this. but life is short, and right now just getting out bed today was an acheivement. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:15, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "The abyss stares back."
 * "Grab a telescope, it's..." Twodots (talk) 16:28, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but could we add an additional poll-thingie? I like four of the options, and I only have three votes... Twodots (talk) 17:42, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

+1 for a 2001 riff. I'd personally go with either the full My God, it's full of stars! or use an ellipsis to lead into the selected content: My God, it's full of... Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 16:40, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yep, along with a photo of David Bowman looking slightly deranged. UninspiringNickname (talk) 10:38, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

1st
<multi poll=Astro1> The mother of all sciences... Star Stuff It's not rocket science, it's... Staring into space It's full of stars! The abyss stares back. Grab a telescope, it's...

2nd
<multi poll=Astro2> The Final Frontier Star Stuff Staring into space... ...The abyss stares back...

3rd
<multi poll=Astro3> Staring into space... ...The abyss stares back.

Thinking about a new name.
I have been thinking about Olivia instead of Hedvig, but I am not sure.--Ms. DelibirdaSkreonk here 08:57, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Is Hedvig an homage to something? Is Olivia? Shabi  DOO  09:01, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Nah.--Ms. DelibirdaSkreonk here 09:12, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * So what do ya think?--Ms. DelibirdaSkreonk here 10:45, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * How about Amanda as a tribute to my late sister? Spud (talk)
 * Okay I have made a decision.--Ms. OliviaUse Chatter here 11:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC)


 * If you want to be renamed, submit your request here, and a mod or tech will change it. -- Goatspeed. 19:40, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Mikemikev drama
What are you guys going to do if section 230 is repealed? At the moment you can get mentally ill people to write defamation on HBD people under anonymity, but if section 230 is repealed you'll be personally responsible for all of that sick crap. Will you shut down the website? Unoriginal Hack (talk) 10:14, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Fuck off, Mike. — <font color="Purple">Oxyaena <font color="Red">Harass  10:49, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * And I mean even more mentally ill than the regulars. Unoriginal Hack (talk) 11:28, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * UH - What has this got to do with RW? Anna Livia (talk) 12:30, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The law they are referring to is 47 U.S. Code § 230. In a nutshell, it says that if you act in good faith to restrict access to illegal content, you are not held liable for illegal content someone posts. Somehow conservatives have gotten in their brain that repealing Section 230 will do something to make mainstream websites all of a sudden accept the racism, advocacy of violence, misinformation and bullshit, etc. that is now "conservative opinion". This is the most bizarro world interpretation of Section 230 I have ever heard of, fitting for a universe where Sidney Powell is conservative lawyer extraordinaire. If social media all of a sudden might be even more liable then ever for someone doing illegal acts, mainstream social media will double down efforts to clean up anything considered "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable". More to the point, knocking sites like 8Chan and Kiwifarms off the net will probably be pretty easy, as these sites have actually encouraged actual illegal activity (doxxing, terrorism, etc.) and their enforcement of such behavior has been questionable. 72.184.174.199 (talk) 15:29, 4 December 2020 (UTC)


 * ElectrosPardon? 15:31, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Michael Coombs is always complaining of "defamation" when all his article does is quote his own deranged internet history. The problem is - he's a pathological liar who tries to blame his internet history onto innocent people so he never owns up to it. Dumbo (talk) 12:42, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Taking the mickey? Or 'cod-psychology Freudian projection'? Anna Livia (talk) 12:54, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Speak of the Devil! Looney Tunes is here to accuse his victims of what he does. I really hope people here, people like David Gerard, are very much in the dark about his behavior. Unoriginal Hack (talk) 13:00, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm just dropping in to point out that all those "alt-tech" and "free speech" sites will be nuked by repealing section 230. So will KiwiFarms, 4chan, 8chan, etc... I know Nazis and white supremacists are terminally stupid, but even they should wake up and realize what a disaster the loss of section 230 would be. 14:33, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Fuck, bro, don't tempt me into rooting for 230 repeal. 19:44, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * taking down the thing that allows social media to not get heavily moderated or shut down under threat of lawsuits to own the libs ElectrosPardon? 15:17, 4 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Hey, I clicked on Dumbo, and the ban notice said "Fuck off Oliver". Which user is that?--Ms. OliviaUse Chatter here 18:46, 4 December 2020 (UTC)


 * LOL imagine the bliss of not knowing who Oliver Smith is. I envy you. -- Goatspeed. 18:53, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Most Anti-Mask arguments are completely Ableist
Anytime someone brings up that you should wear a mask to protect those with preexisting medical conditions like Asthma, COPD, Cancer, HIV/AIDS, Autoimmune disease or PMLD- the anti-mask crowd says "They should stay home so we don't have to live in fear".

To me their arguments represent vile ableist rhetoric with a lack of compassion and empathy. They deny people the right to good health while screaming about their own "freedom". So much like Orwellian Doublethink. You say that you support an idea while actively going against it. --Channel 48 WDEM-TV3 (talk) 03:29, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Anti-mask ridiculousness is a mix of sociopathy, a mind virus and people who refuse to use reason. I blame a lot of the second element on the evils of social media. Shabi  DOO  03:42, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Funny you mention it. I was watching part of Zach Hubbard's newest video earlier (I was bored) and he began bragging about causing a big scene in a Costco for not wearing a mask. And of course he can't figure out why most people don't take him seriously. Aaronmichael5 2:58, 2 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Are you really that surprised by their toxicity? Honestly, most of the MAGA crowd are such hateful people. -- Goatspeed. 04:19, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This is the effects of willful ignorance. And we will have to keep fighting them, as it were, long after Trump has left office. 04:23, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know. I've told people who refuse to wear the masks because "medical condition!" that if they find the mask too uncomfortable then they aren't going to like a respirator and should probably stay home. CoryUsar (talk) 05:18, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * the more people refuse to wear masks, the longer and more severe business tanking lockdowns will be imposed. even if they really do feel masks are pointless, they should humour us to help the economy. you can ease restrictions if it looks like people are taking necessary precautions not just taking the piss. its not even ignorance at this point, its spite. for yous in the us, i wonder how accurately you can tell who people voted just by if they are wearing a mask or not? in the uk anti mask types seem to be from across the political spectrum, only having them be all fucknuts in common. i kind of suspect its more along party lines across the pond. is that true or am i just imagining that to be so? AMassiveGay (talk) 12:35, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Nope, it's very much determined by party over here. Twodots (talk) 18:37, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * If one must diagnose the cause of the anti-mask response, I would say it was caused by the combination of the false belief that the virus is not very dangerous (thanks donald), contrarianism that can be politicized, and the general dislike of covering ones face. People don't like to be told what to do, and some will never take precautions until someone they know is affected.Ariel31459 (talk) 21:02, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I also instinctively recoil at the overuse of the "ableism" label here at RatWiki recently. The difference between "ableism" and "racism"\"sexism" is that melanin\ovaries are not flaws.  Being disabled is.  We still need to take care of our disabled, because quite frankly, there's a chance we could become one at any minute, and generally speaking, we should create the world we want to live in.
 * However, this brings an interesting argument. You are not harmed by a Black woman being in your town, and if you think you are, go fellate a garbage disposal.  However, you are mildly inconvenienced if your town has a disabled person, in the form of having to walk an extra two steps to make room for a disabled parking spot.  If those extra two steps are a problem for you, again, there is a garbage disposal that needs some lovin'.  But in the world where people having a disability such as diabetes or other immuno-compromising condition means that you have to lose your job/business/entertainment/etc?  That's not a mild inconvenience anymore.  Disabled people are effectively harming you by existing.  People overeating and becoming obese is no longer a personal choice, as it's now creating problems for you.  Strangers having unprotected sex and risking an immuno-compromising disease is harming you.  Strangers chain-smoking is now harming you. CoryUsar (talk) 21:58, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * CorruptUser you are lumping in people with "lifestyle choice" disabilities with every other one and then using really viscous language like "harm me by existing" on a curious minority of people with disabilities as though they are emblematic of "disabled people" in general. It sort of reminds me of people who radically oppose reasonable things by taking the most extreme cases and highly exaggerating the difficulties they cause and leaving it to people's imagination that this one small issue could cause widespread disruption if a larger policy were enforced therefore putting into question what it otherwise a reasonable measure or program or policy. Just because in some jurisdictions obese people are protected by disability laws causing economic strain on a business owner DOESN'T MEAN IT IS UNREASONABLE TO STAND UP FOR DISABLED PEOPLE IN GENERAL! What is wrong with you sometimes? Do you not think about the shit you type before clicking "save page"? Do you not see how vile the dehumanising language "harms me by existing" is when you have nearly unlimited alternatives like "cause financial difficulty" or "put my business in jeopardy"? Shabi  DOO  22:42, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * In the context of COVID, the shutdown and economic issues are doing a lot more than "causing financial difficulty". Actuarially speaking, the shutdown put young people's lives in danger; poverty is notorious for reducing life expectancy.  People are holding off on having kids to the point where we are expecting 400,000 fewer births, and the longer a woman (and to a lesser extant the man as well) waits to have children, the higher the chance of complications or inability to have any children at all.
 * In the world where everyone was healthy-ish with no underlying co-morbidities, the mortality rate from COVID would've been low enough that we wouldn't have had to shut down everything. But we don't live in that world, we live in this world where something close to half of all Americans have some sort of health condition.
 * This is an interesting variation of the Ethics problem of the doctor with the 5 patients in need of an organ transplant, and a patient with a curable condition but otherwise healthy organs enters. Would it be ethical to refuse treatment for the person, and then harvest their organs to save the other 5 people? CoryUsar (talk) 23:11, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * As for the OP, as you can probably tell, I don't like the lockdown. However, the whole "we shouldn't have to wear a mask" thing is absolute Bull-SHIT.  Even if we should've kept everything open, wearing a mask is a relatively minor inconvenience that should've been made mandatory, and if you can't be bothered to wear a mask then you should stay home.  The mask does save lives and significantly harms absolutely no one. CoryUsar (talk) 23:27, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I live in Texas, where I'm pretty much surrounded by people who can't stand our mask mandate. Heck, literally everyone else in my family hates it. I really don't care about it myself though, cause I'd much rather have a mask order than a stay at home order. At this point, I honestly think stay at home orders are pointless except maybe for extreme cases, usually resulting from people who refuse our given precautions (i.e masks). We shut everything down in March because we knew very little about this virus at least compared to now, but now we know that it's not so much businesses being open that spreads the virus, it's people who act like morons that spread the virus. It's mind boggling really. I understand masks can be inconvenient but between that and another stay at home order, guys, I don't think it's a comparison. You'd think people would get this, but they just don't for reasons. Aaronmichael5 22:41, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I suspect most anti-maskers are unlikely to be impressed by the label 'ableism' or take its inherent moral claims seriously. It certainly is one of the more 'problematic' of the -isms. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 17:28, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Problematic as in it is a label for the systematic prejudice society has towards the disabled? I agree, just look at our resident ableist shithead Cory here. — <font color="Purple">Oxyaena <font color="Red">Harass  10:09, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, "shithead" is a slur towards all the people that suffer from Fecal-Cranial Syndrome, and people with FCS have had enough suffering at the hands of inconsiderate jerks such as yourself. You need to check your privilege. CoryUsar (talk) 01:51, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You need to check your privilege. — <font color="Purple">Oxyaena <font color="Red">Harass  09:43, 5 December 2020 (UTC)