RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive342

Brexit, finally
While I was not able to vote in the referendum, disagree with the existence of the referendum entirely, (referendums have never been used as more than poltical tools, only difference being this one blew up in Cameron's face) and think that remaining the EU should have been unanimously voted on and that Leave won is evidence we live in the worst timeline and humanity is doomed, it's over, besides subsequent political declarations and negotiations. Maybe we, as a country, can finally start talking about important issues, like austerity, poverty and the deteriorating state of the NHS - or maybe we'll just invent another fake crisis that exclusively benefits the rich. Who knows? Enjoy the next four years of Johnson and Cummings. Minish (talk) 22:20, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, I know that the UK wants to leave the EU but I do not exactly understand how it works. What is the actual end game for leaving the EU and what are the motivations behind it? I have heard so much conflicting information about it and I really do not understand it all. One thing I do know is that the whole Brexit thing is screwing up economies. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 22:32, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * People (half of people, literally 51% and 5% of them have subsequently died of old age) want to leave the EU because UK politicians, especially prime ministers, have used the EU as a scapegoat for every single problem for 40 years. Even when Thatcher championed joining the EU, she repeatedly shouted at Brussels and unnecessarily went fucking nuts in Commons at the implication of joining the Eurozone (even though she could have just opted-out, which Major did). Of course, there's also the racism. A lot of racism. Minish (talk) 22:39, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The only people scapegoated more by UK politicians than the EU are immigrants, and even then you can blame the EU for 'forcing us' to allow those dastardly black peop musli immigrants. Minish (talk) 22:42, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The European Union is more than a union but less than a country. It is a combination of a massive free trade (and free movement zone), a collection of countries with a specific set of ideologies at the core of their union and growth (human rights, social security, protections for people, fostering better markets, improving nieghbours, strength through unity, greater future integration, respect for national differences, protection of minorities and so on. On top of that the EU over laps or makes up part of a huge range of agreements like a non-border zone (schengen included non EU states), a customs zone (EU), a joint currency (some EU countries don't participate), a joint defence group (weak and involving non-members) and so on and so on. The UK was never part of the border free zone nor the currency. So nothing changes there. They were however a part of the customs zone and the free movement (all EU and some non-eu countries) so here there will be massive changes. But I would say the biggest loss is the single market (all EU and a few non-EU) which will mean the departure from a large group that negotiates free trade between themselves and favourable trade agreements with the rest of the world. The UK is now entirely on its own and will get to nogotiate a few favourable trade agreements with a few countries.
 * And will massively lose hugely favourable trade agreements that can only be made in large numbers. As the UK is a small country, they'll lose out big time this way. UK citizens will no longer be able to live or easily study in other EU countries nor look for work and pension and reciprocal healthcare and benefits will become either impossible or a nightmare. Those who lived in the UK or UK citizens who lived in the EU before the Brexit will have some protections. The biggest loss, in my opinion however were the great about of legislation that EU countries agreed on together. Part of a large movement of progressive legislation that protected workers rights, enviromental laws, human rights, consumer protections etc. As the UK pulls out...all of those EU created laws will become mostly void unless the current government keeps that legislation. A conservative government has no motivation to keep these, as they get in the way of "freeing up the market". So most Brits can slowly say goodbye to those and watch their country mirror the few protections, lack of such rights and paltry set of social programs you would find in most US republican states. The UK has been on a fairly cruel road the last some years cutting social programs to levels that would even make Slovenia and Estonia look "third world". Now that the conservative party has cut the tether with the EU...they can cut away those programs until they barely (if at all) exist.
 * That will shore up a lot of money for fabulous tax cuts and generous corporate subsidies etc. It will all decimate the livelihoods of the very people who voted for Brexit. So yeah...that's the juste of the EU, UK, Brexit and what to look forward to. Shabi  DOO  22:54, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. From the sound of it the economy of the UK will take a nice big hit and a lot of people will probably be unemployed. That sounds so much better than staying in the Eurozone (epic sarcasm). --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:00, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Supranational_European_Bodies-en.png Here is a very good venn diagram that shows some (hardly all) of the European institutions. The EU is part of, within, composes some of, or has optional memeberhips or includes the EU and a few other countries...in dozens and dozens of institutions and organizations. It is extremely complex. Complex enough that it is absolutely absurd to say the UK would be better or worse off without a pretty detailed analysis of what would happen after exiting so many institutions. Of course...Brexit voters never listened to that analysis. Too busy dreaming of blue passports. Shabi  DOO  23:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know how much of a hit the UK will take nor how fast it will happen. Perhaps there will be more jobs created as the UK becomes a centre of cheap labour. I don't know. The only thing you can be totally sure of, is the declining standard of living of the British. It will be ugly for sure. Shabi  DOO  23:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, the half-Chinese part of me has noticed that the near future might be a good time for China to start taking revenge against the UK for the Century of Humiliation. Let’s se some British cities get forcibly leased, bitches! 00:46, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You can take Sunderland. Literally no one will miss it. If you can turn it into a new Hong Kong I think everyone will congratulate you. Go head and take it. The EU isn't going to stop you now! Shabi  DOO  01:50, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * There needs to be a 2020 Berlin Conference between all the great powers so we can decide how to carve up the British Isles. The US needs to make sure we get at least some of the good parts. 03:20, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * RIP Brits. Your country appears to be doomed. Don't make deals with U.S. corporations or the U.S. government and you might salvage enough to kill each other over a bowl of gruel next winter. 02:27, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I think since the EU has dealt with about a decade of endless insults from UK separatists, a fairly hefty financial and political toll and general "pain and suffering" that EU countries should get all European land. I think the US, Canada, Japan, China etc can fight over British territories like Bermuda, Sandwich Island etc. I've already put a fair bit of thought into this and, obviously nobody wants Wales or Northern Ireland. Seems like a total bother to have to administer those places. So it should be given to the two EU countries who have been behaving badly recently as a sort of punishment. Wales goes to Poland and Northern Ireland as an extra punishment for Hungary who have been seriously misbehaving recently. Perhaps the two homophobic governments will have something in common to chat about. I think London should go to Spain...the main reason is because I said so. I imagine the Baltic countries will all be fighting over Scotland as a fantastic prize so they can just take it all together and figure something out. Italy and Germany can choose between Manchester and Liverpool but their football teams will go to the Netherlands cause they could really use some good football players. Oxford and Cambridge should go to Belgium as you can trust a country like Belgium with educational institutions. The Isle of Man should go to Luxembourg cause they have quite a bit of experience with fiscal fraud and tax evasion. What else? Yes I think Jersey and Guernsey can go to France cause I think at least 0.0000001% of their population still speaks an old French dialect. Portugal can have Durham as both places are small, unremarkable yet charming in their own way. Slovakia really really wants Stonehenge so they can have it as long as they promise not to somehow turn in into a boring tourist site, at least not as boring as traveling in Slovakia is. The Czech republic can have Birmingham because they're both fairly atheist. Malta should get Cornwall cause, Malta desperately needs green open spaces which Cornwall has lots of. Cyprus can have Sheffield so that they also have plenty of Turkish neighbours. I think the rest of the countries can fight over the scraps like Nottingham and Derby and Isle of Wight. No one will really feel like taking Essex so they can become a barbarian state of sorts. That just leaves the Queens royal land and palaces which I believe we can take, sell and give all that money to the victims of Prince Andrew's sexual assault which he denies being a part of. Who likes my plan? Shabi  DOO  05:25, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm gonna softly disagree. I think India and Pakistan should get some of British Isles, and I must insist that the US gets at least Plymouth as a treaty port. As for overseas territories, the US should get the British Virgin Islands so they can be united. Canada can get Bermuda because they could probably use a nice tropical island. 18:54, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I feel like you can take Essex of you can take none of it. theres a reason I left Essex and id rather not have those gobshites running around unfettered. those without the sense to leave that wasteland need to be contained. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:19, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

3 years on and it feels like little changed. we started with austerity and an old etonian, and we are still with austerity and old etonian, except the new have now has achieved his only goal, and has no plan. having aligned himself with worst corporate pirhanas the tories can muster, it does not bode well. it does not bode well that I do not believe the opposition has learned any lessons, seeing as they spent the last three years playing politics, preventing any progress but offering no alternatives. epic hubris from the first etonian, having learned no lesson from the indyref unleashed forces he did not understand, oblivious to the people his austerity policies were devastating, who he did not been consult, realising too late the sheer amount of effort to make a case for something so poorly understood, and he had no counter to the lies of the leave who merely had to loudly repeat. the epitome of the out of touch elite, he had only given the people he had been shitting on for so long an opportunity to punch his shiny fat face. an etonian education - its sole purpose is instill an unshakable confidence in a belief that they were burn to rule. sadly not much else, as is evident from the replacement etonian, with their complete lack of principle, callous disregard for the damage wrought from his self serving antics, no regard for the people who have been and will continue to suffer except as a means to an end - to rule. he has won that and now does not know what to do with it. he was aided in no small part by some one so long a back bencher, that were wholly unprepared for the challenges a head when he found himself as leader of the opposition, and grand talk of principle and a 'new politics' fell to tactics of old, never fully grasping the situation we in, or that the new politics that we actually have far from what he had envisioned. his own hubris formed from believing being beaten into second place by a shambling tory party in disarray was a 'victory'. misreading the failures of mays government get anything done as sign they need only block every proposal, and the labour would reap results. but may's failures were not incompetence, it was the impossibility of a 'good' Brexit deal. but blocking proposals while offering nothing in return? those 3 years of paralysis have just as damaging as Brexit itself to our political system, and it remains to be seen how well it will function after what we did to it.

austerity will continue, and the people who will suffer from this disaster were already suffering before. will they see a worsening situation as the result of an absence of the eu? the eu was only ever an abstract idea to a lot of people. it only meant straight bananas and niggling disapproval from years of spurious news articles. immigration was the only real thing people could see, and that only became an issue with austerity, becoming easy prey to xenophobic rhetoric from the media. we can mock their ignorance and decry their racism, but we didn't offer any alternatives. few on the remain side understood the eu any better, the government and the eu should have been doing a better job of selling it to the people who voted to leave, should have done so a whole lot sooner than in a hopelessly lost cause of the referendum. out of touch elites - the eu, parliament, Etonians, liberal media - they were one and same, none of them had given the people in leave communities any gave them any thought before, dismissing them as racist knuckle draggers without any inkling of the struggles they were having, then giving them the knife to cut our throats.

it was already a world of memes and fake news and bludgeoning the truth with the most shameless lies. Brexit showed us the effectiveness of those tactics, and how we had no answer to them except to disregard the views of those that get taken in by them. that's why they get taken in. I do not think we have learned these lessons yet. labour took these people for granted, and were annihilated at the polls. the more liberal tories let them take the brunt of austerity, out of sight out of mind, and now a more extreme tory is in ascendence. those corporate pirhanas. they've learned these lessons. its they that pioneered these tactics. its they who listened to those people we had nothing to say to except call them racist, and they gave them a wrecking ball. the pirhanas will be feeding soon. mind your toes. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:07, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Brexit is a giant leap into the unknown. I don't think it's a good idea but the outcomes are totally unknowable. Those on the pro-Brexit side of the argument feel that it is a massive opportunity. Many of those who oppose Brixit fear that it will lead to disaster.

But the truth is that nobody really knows and that a lot will depend on the outcomes of negotiations yet to be undertaken along with other international imponderables.

One thing that must be frustrating for those on the anti-brexit side is that they will now be more or less obliged to work as hard as the pro Brexit crowd to try to make a success of bloody Brexit.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:21, 1 February 2020 (UTC)


 * id be a little more optimistic about it all if even just one brexiter had any kind of plan at all that wasn't complete dogshit and that even just one brexiter now in government and involved in getting something done was not a complete dick hole. just one. they dont even have to be competent, just don't give the impression that they will eat their young. and not be boris because he is a fucking tool. I bet the guy who locks up at night turns out to be bnp and beats his wife. best case is we accept freedom of movement, and sign up to all regs. like being in the eu still, but with no say at all. fucking cunts.


 * and we will still likely have farage screeching about betrayal because he just wont fuck off and needs something to keep his mind off wondering how many statues we should commission of him. he could hook up with boris down the pub to see if they can quantify just how Churchillian they each are and see how long it takes before he suggest they ask Donald because they are pals and try and then fail to get him on the phone. failing that, there would be the old fall back of trying to guess how many kids boris really has. hes in number 10 and has the resources to finally find out. probably need both mi5 and mi6. they'll have keep it the results sealed for at least 75 year though. because fuck child support.


 * I wonder if we can bring back imperial measures? it will already on a listed suggestion on some list made up in cabinet of things to do after Brexit. blue passports is already crossed off. theres no stopping us. pretty sure boris would have circled 'black and white minstrel show'. I bet he loves that shit. he'll probably tire of farage drunk dialing in the middle night, begging for a job though. will have to block the number like trump had to. little bit too needy. fucking pleb.


 * I am little bit euphoric from all this extra sovereignty. I might need a lie down AMassiveGay (talk) 19:43, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry Bob but only a fool would think that taking an extremely good business contract and trading buddies, ripping that contract up and then pissing on it, then pissing all over your business contacts and then trying to renegotiate a new contract with them while they are soaking in your own piss...and then be forced in one blink of an economic eye to renegotiate extremely complex trade deals with all those other guys out there who know you are very vulnerable...could somehow lead a country to being in a "better off" situation. I don't think the UK is necessarily heading to apocalyptic disaster. I never said that in fact and I don't know anyone here who clearly seriously said that either. Bad times isn't the same as end of times. And predicting pointless very painful times coming isn't some exaggerated unreasonable expectation of Armageddon. There will always be a few winners in these kind of games. They'll start collecting their prizes soon. It will however, be extremely painful for most British citizens in the long run and there will...under 99.999% certainty be a steady decrease in the standard of living of British citizens unless some gold mine is found and some radical government gets in and finds a way to solve a dirth of problems that requires hard core responsible government (which the UK hasn't voted for for decades). This is the problem. So many people keep saying: well things could work out you know. As though there's some kind of 50/50 chance. Which is sort of like saying the world could magically get better climatically on its own without a remarkable economic/political change which people show no willingness to do. You'd be silly for not pitying most British people in the coming years and only a fool wouldn't see the evil that Brexit-campaigning was. It was an ugly, sinister evil thing to do and people are fucked. We don't know what will happen but it won't be pleasant and you'd be naive to think otherwise.  Shabi  DOO  23:42, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I swear Brexit caught me with the pants down as I was expecting it would still be delayed some months. That said while I saw it at first as a slap to the EU and what came from it in the last economical crisis, time has shown it to be a very bad idea and thing and not just because of some who campaigned for it.
 * That future UK-US (Free?) Trade Agreement is something to be worried about. Panzerfaust (talk) 00:30, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I can envision a 'good' Brexit two infact. one of em even probable. of course 'good' is subjective, and you have to ask who for. one, probably unlikey, is brexit will succeed because the eu collapses either through some unthought of catastrophe, not something i'd put money on, and we'd be an economic powerhouse, with impoverished European nations desperate for our custom, easily bullied into our manufacturing base for cheap goods and labour, and restart our empire but entirely in the eu, or former eastern bloc countries  within the eu like Poland or hungary make good on threats of leaving that been rumbling for some time bt never concrete. its possible but unlikely, that hungary could leave,  being threatened with fines or expulsion for poor governance, with bribes or fines may sparking. an exodus other countries. threats by hungary have  been hollow as they get a great deal in subsidies, and like seeing how far they can push things. mediterrainan states could follow if they did, to get better control of their borders, or help deter refugees. it would require significant economic hardship for europeans, to be 'good' for us, certainly no good for europeans. or maybe a meteor hits, and we win while Europe is devastated. I woulnt really want to hope for such an event.
 * the good evet that is actually a possibility is we sell of the nhs, and just about everything, and de reg and remove taxs for corporations. its only good if you are a corporation, or if, making this more likely than is comfortable, a good number of those in the government. they are chomping at the bit for that plan.
 * I have heard no suggestion from anyone credible of a trade agreement coming near to what we have given up, the most favourable projections all have the economy significantly shrinking.
 * but that sovereignty though. you cant put a price on that. its worth noting that those selling the idea of making our own trade deals during the referendum, were always vague in their claims, that we might do well, or we could do a trade do a deal with the states, or the commonwealth were crying out for our custom. maybe. no commonwealth country ever said so. some said the opposite. there was never any case they could point to of a lost opportunity where we could have made a mint if not for the eu as evidence. trump said the us would give us a good deal. good being a relative and all.
 * I have struggled these past years to find any good reason for Brexit, anything that we might gain. I could never find anything, given nothing but vagaries like sovereignty and democracy. it was maddening. now the ink is dry on the paper work, we are officially out. celebrations for the event has passed, I can still find no answer this. what the fuck have we done?AMassiveGay (talk) 02:46, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, considering the differences between the US and UK economic strength, it won't matter who the president is. If the Brits try to make a trade deal, the US is gonna take away everything that isn't nailed down. 02:52, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * In any deal of such kind, the country with the most powerful economy will have the upper hand. In one with either the US or the EU, it's clear who will. The former as noted above will take everything that is not outside negotiations and the latter will want its vengeance in the way noted below (could free movement of workers between UK and EU be included?), perhaps being the lesser evil. Panzerfaust (talk) 13:30, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

The EU has the UK over a barrel now. The UK is going to have sign up to accept broad swathes of EU regulations as part of any trade deal, without any say in how those regulations are made. Spain is finally going to get Gibraltar back. Scotland will become independent. Ireland will be reunited. Eventually, the Little Englanders will realise how badly they've been screwed over – they'll never blame themselves though. It'll always be the EU's fault. "Those sneaky EU bureaucrats ruined Brexit!" DepressedAustralian (talk) 11:17, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The people of Gibraltar have repeatedly voted to remain in the UK, I don't think Spain will get Gibraltar back. — Oxyaena Harass  11:40, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * And Scotland won't become independent / Ireland won't be reunited, Johnson controls their fate and he can just ignore the SNP and SF. And it won't be the 'Little Englanders' that get screwed over dumbass, it'll be the EU citizens and poor people. Minish (talk) 14:12, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * EU has said that no deal will apply to Gibraltar without Spain's agreement. Source. What is the UK going to do? Either they give something on sovereignty, or else they let Gibraltar's economy suffer. As far as Scotland and Ireland goes – the more Johnson says "No" to another referendum on Scottish independence, that is likely to play into SNP's hands and make independence more popular – and the UK can't keep on saying "No" forever. In the case of Northern Ireland, if the polls start showing majority support for reunification, then the UK is under a legal obligation under the Good Friday Agreement to call a referendum – and if they don't, the Irish government will call them out. Support for Sinn Fein is growing in the Republic (see opinion polls for upcoming Irish general election) – it is becoming ever more likely that the day will come when an Irish government needs Sinn Fein support, and the quid pro quo will be that Ireland take a more assertive role in seeking reunification. DepressedAustralian (talk) 22:01, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Gibraltar doesn't just require spains agreement, it requires the people of gibraltars agreement too. as with northern Ireland, it doesn't matter what sein fein in the republic want, its the people of northern Ireland who have the ultimate decider. time will tell how soon public opinion shifts, but until it does - the status quo. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:55, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Spain can do a lot of damage to the Gibraltar economy simply by tightening the screws on the border. They don't have to full-on close it like Franco did, just add lots of bureaucratic red-tape and go-slows. Back when UK and Gibraltar was in EU, if Spain tried to do this, EU would have stopped them. Now that UK and Gibraltar have left EU, why would EU do anything to stop Spain? And then people of Gibraltar have a choice – joint sovereignty with an open border, or no joint sovereignty with a semi-closed one. In Northern Ireland's case, probably next year's census will show a Catholic majority. It will take a bit longer to reach Stormont since while Catholics already outnumber Protestants among the young, Protestants still outnumber Catholics among the older age groups, but as the young grow up and the old die off, the day will come when the nationalists will take possession of the office of First Minister from the unionists. DepressedAustralian (talk) 23:31, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * what about it? its still gibraltan or northern irish populations deciding their future, not as you were suggesting external demands. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:29, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * aside from anything else, the eventual break up of the UK (something ive predicted since the referendum anyway) is not even a primary a concern right now. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:32, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

How the heck does our food system actually work?
Saw a Youtube video complaining about how farmers are not in fact poor, humble food producers, but overwhelmingly millionaire landowners who toss perfectly good food away to fix prices. Now, I know using Youtube as an argument is bad form, but it did remind me how our industrial agricultural system is nothing like what's in the popular imagination, and that opaqueness bothers me a lot considering how important food is. I guess to put it in the form of a few questions:
 * How much agriculture, especially in the developing world, is diverted into monoculture cash crops compared to subsistence food?
 * What percentage of farmland is dedicated to regenerative agriculture compared to industrial agriculture?
 * How many more people could we feed if we removed all the inefficiencies (e.g. meat production, food waste, water-hogging crops like almonds and avocados)?
 * What can we do to help actual subsistence farmers from getting outcompeted by the corporate conglomerates?
 * How viable are greenhouses, vertical farming, and agrovoltaics in terms of energy and water use compared to traditional open-field agriculture?
 * How efficient is local food actually? And why is the supply chain so much more convoluted than what would make intuitive sense?

Probably got a lot more questions, but this is a start. Colossal Squid (talk) 04:22, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I can only answer some of these questions through the perspective of someone whose family (divided among a few people) own a 240 acre farm in Indiana (so I'm in one of these Youtuber "farmer families" I guess :) ), but I am not terribly involved in the day-to-day or the details.
 * (*) In the developed world, a fair bit of farming is *incredibly* automated.
 * (*) That being said, the people who farm do seem to need to have a very good sense of the land characteristics to make adjustments here and there, it's not a job any idiot can do.
 * (*) But due to automation, 240 acres is actually rather small in our given crops (soybeans and field corn). We have one person (in our case a family member, sorry Youtuber) basically managing the entire lot. One person probably could do a fair bit more than that -- everything is pretty much automated.
 * (*) Greenhouses and vertical farming consequently are never going to be as efficient. (However, they can occupy some key niches for sure.)
 * (*) The same with moving away from GMOs (if you care) or organic methods (also if you care). Neither is as efficient as industrial farming practice.
 * (*) We are not in the area of the Midwest where wind works well, and the north Midwest probably is not the best place for agrivoltaics. But plenty of farmers in Iowa etc. are happy to lease a few bits of land in return for some income from wind power. Make the dollars work and everything flows from there.
 * (*) Farming, at least this sort, is profitable-ish, but it does tend to be relatively low margin, with a few significant capital expenses for tractors / combines etc. Farmland also is ridiculously expensive these days. If it was just one person and not a few, 240 acres might actually be enough to qualify for "$1 million dollars of land" for all I know. It is probably easy to borrow your way into trouble if you aren't careful.
 * (*) Nonetheless, this Youtuber is probably right that the ideal of the farmer mythos in the general public currently seems to be stuck in the late 19th century. Soundwave106 (talk) 02:36, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait, how are GMOs not as efficient as industrial farming practice? I was under impression that GMOs, though costly and arduous to pass regulation, can reduce pesticide spray, reduce fertilizer usage, be drought-resistant, be resistant to bruising, etc. which I imagine should make farming more efficient. Maybe it is the whole approval process, but the GMOs themselves, well, seems to make output easier for less investment. 01:00, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The wording was definitely unclear, sorry. GMO crops are *more* efficient for reasons you state. We buy seeds from one of the big seed corporations, and it is genetically modified. (In the past, it would have been selective breeding.) Organic farming also is less efficient than non-organic.
 * I don't know enough about the day-to-day to know if there are opportunities to advance from this more industrial, centralized vision though. There are downsides to being tied to a seed company and tractors that you can't even repair yourself, efficiencies aside. And I certainly think some of the complaints about the market distortions in agriculture are justified.
 * I know at one point a long time ago (30 years ago?) our farm had a few hogs and chickens, and they were definitely raised in a small scale fashion with coops that weren't cramped and actual roaming room outdoors. I think it was a lot of work for little profit and eventually the ones doing the farming stopped doing this. What would be interesting to know if the premium for more ethical meat is such where this would make more financial sense these days (even with the work this would entail). That's something I would not be able to answer, though. Soundwave106 (talk) 02:09, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmm, what do you think about lab-grown meat? 04:22, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * An interesting possibility that needs more work. I think the current meat substitutes in vogue (Beyond Meat and Impossible Burger) in some ways don't have too many positives beyond being way better for the environment; while a decent-ish imitation of meat, nutritionally they are kind of marginal, and they are kind of over-processed. So it's not going to replace a top-dollar filet or New York strip anytime soon, and it's not a substitute for having a better diet in the first place. That being said, in spaces where your choices are already over-processed (eg fast food), it's a pretty good substitute just for environmental reasons alone. Soundwave106 (talk) 13:35, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Well as far as I know, lab-grown meat is going to be the same tissue and composition; the only difference would be how it's harvested. I feel once the cost of developing lab-grown meat goes down, it'll be far more sustainable and ethical than traditional harvest and so it'll take less land and therefore less resources to grow. I mean, as you said, doing so more sustainably just can't compete with industry efficiency, so I wonder if lab-grown stuff can combine both. 21:09, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * My concern for lab-grown meat is similar to vertical farming: energy use. It's possible that they've managed to make the process very energy-efficient, and if so, I'd like to know about it, but lab-grown anything sounds like it'd require a lot of electricity to run. We'd also probably run into a bunch of stubborn folk similar to the ones who insist on purchasing mined diamonds. Colossal Squid (talk) 04:21, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Large scale farming is necessary even if it creates waste. And the waste is what gets subsidized.  And subsidizations are based on crop.  So a crop becomes a monoculture, at least big enough to offset waste via subsidization.  Large-scale monoculture creates waste, subsidization offsets that.  But we are decades into consumer expectation and producer subsidy.  Which one breaks? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:41, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Working on a Facebook page promoting skepticism
https://www.facebook.com/Skeptic-Zombie-107627684115952/?modal=admin_todo_tour

I call it- Skeptic Zombie. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 13:51, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Braiiinsssss. I neeeeeed theeeem. — Jeh2ow Damn son!  16:11, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Democracy
People here will often shout that we should be "proud of our democracy and freedoms," but as Westerners we should know that our democracy comes at the expense of other people's democracy as we plunder their resources and hold them in economic vassalage. You tell me I should be proud to be an American, or a member of the EU, but why? The fact I was born a marginalized, working class American is completely out of my control, I could've been born an orphan in Syria for example, all of us could have. Not to mention that these countries were built off the back of slavery and genocide, which still happens to this day, there's a reason indigenous peoples protest Australia Day, Canada Day, Columbus Day, so on and so forth, because our prosperity is at their expense.

So, tell me, why should I be patriotic? There's a difference between gratitude and pride after all, I am grateful I was born in the US versus, say, Somalia, but I have no reason to be proud of that. And even so, being born here, I still am a marginalized person living a precarious existence, I have more in common with the people of the global south than I do the capitalist class here. — Oxyaena Harass  17:18, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I very much agree that one should not be proud of their homeland just because they live there. Unfortunately, that is a human trait. The Russians do it, the Chinese do it, Americans, British and French do it, Africans too, and it has little to do with economics. One should be very glad of ones freedoms. We see misfortune almost everywhere in the world. Nobody is happy about it. What we do is learn to forget about it. You may have noticed, we don't like to be reminded. As much as I sympathize with your analysis, I don't believe observing problems everywhere can result in solving problems anywhere. Maybe, not everything is out of your control. Pick a good movie, maybe video game ( I never play those things), have a nice meal with friends.Ariel31459 (talk) 19:26, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * As someone who is both a patriot and pro-democracy, I can say you dont actually have a reason to be proud inspite of the things first world western countries have done. The crimes committed tarnish any good accomplishment at home, and the constant callousness towards the rest of the world makes the claims of democracy seem hollow.  But do realize there is a difference between the corrupt ruling class's intentions and those of the populous.  There is a reason they white-wash history, because people would be outraged at the truth and often find it too terrible to believe.  Even at the height of the English Empire the population would try and execute captains who black-birded indigenous peoples; but because they were rich they often hid amongst their other affluent friends.  Even at the height of slavery in the US half the population was staunchly against it.  There has never been a period of time where the majority of people in a society have been horrid people, their elite rich classes almost always are, however.  Too bad the elite control what countries do. So what is there to be proud of?  That western countries are even countries you would rather live in versus others at all.  Better than others which abuse poorer nations and wreck governments around the world but still suck more than others to live in.  It doesnt outway the bad, but at least there is some silver lining.  MirrorIrorriM (talk) 19:29, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Mirror, that is exactly what the West does tho. Recently the Philippines even threatened to cut all ties with Canada unless Canada stop dumping illegal waste there, and even noted they would "dump it back in Canadian waters." These countries are imaginary, social constructs, lines on paper meant to divide humanity, and will resort to violence to maintain that status quo of oppressive division. Borders are inherently violent themselves, serving to control the movement of people, and thereby by extension, control people. — Oxyaena Harass  19:50, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I would disagree with the idea that borders are inherently violent. That is to say, using "violence" in this context seems too broad. A better term would be coercive, or perhaps forceful. 21:30, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * (ec)the problem with that thinking is that there are so many steps from here to what ever utopia ideal you might imagine that you need literal and complete revolution to bypass the necessary steps if you are so focused on that end goal, which no matter how to you spin is at this point entire hypothetical, and entirely unproven, and far from certain is even possible or desirable. you require things to be a whole lot worse for a whole lot of people to even consider washing away the whole current system with the upheaval that would ensue. and you need agreement and planning and compromise, to prevent it all turning into chaos.
 * its a recipe for inertia. you cant build a movement over night, you cannot demand everything now, and you cannot expect people to sign up to something that is a fantasy without decades of activism or massive public support. railing against the whole corrupt system and things impossible to change any time soon is just spitting the wind, even if it is a natural response to the powerless we can all feel.
 * there are more pressing issues now with more tangible action, more achievable goals. things can get a whole lot worse if ignored, and you wont be any closer to your ultimate goals. and in the meantime you can find ways to make things work on a smaller scale, coops and the like, see what works, amend your ideals with like minded people, see the limitations. do some good while having something to point to instead of complaining china isn't communist. its better to improve or at least prevent from getting worse things in a current system even if you don't like it. the system likely remain for a while without your import, and it'll be worse for all involved if we leave them to it.
 * aside from anything else, is anyone actually proud with the state of their democracy? the us has always seemed awful to me, even before trump trying to actively circumvent it, and the uk has always had some quirks, and has to some hurdles to deal with before i can feel it is back to what is for me, 'workable'. issues with foreign policy are not, or at least haven't been, democratic failings, they are failings of human nature. in the uk at least, with say, arms sale to saudi, the electorate not are concerned enough with them that its a deal breaker at the polls. if at all. things like waste shipped to foreign climes, probably not all. nor will they unless stories in the news start gain traction or can no longer ignore a situation. theres million things we should probably give more scrutiny, but life is complicated and we need to delegate responsible for a lot of things, to people smarter or at least more experienced in dealing with these things. that's what government is for, and why democracy is necessarily representative the more complicated things get, even more so if they are on an international scale. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:59, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

"People here will often shout that we should be "proud of our democracy and freedoms,"" I question that there are many people here who are "shouting" this. Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 20:49, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant aside noted. — Oxyaena Harass  22:57, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Initial strawman premise noted.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:21, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * None of this is addressing the substance of my argument, because you have nothing to respond with. You can only be pedantic twats. — Oxyaena Harass  08:45, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Traditionally people start debates with a statement which is true and demonstrable. If fail to do this then your argument is weakened. Furthermore, responding to people who point this out with insults does little to convince them they were wrong to doubt you from the beginning.
 * Now, you can start over by saying "OK I was wrong to start with an obvious exaggeration" and try again. Or you can keep going with the insults.  One path might be more profitable than the other. Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 10:53, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I could demonstrate it if I wanted to, but I didn't want to name names. What brings this to mind was a discussion over patriotism we had a while back, with Mirror serving as the main patriot advocate, and Shabidoo also constantly preaches the glories of the EU like it's paradise and not the neoliberal hellhole it really is. — Oxyaena Harass  11:38, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You truly love strawmanning the fuck out of people Oxyaena. You know, if you don't want to name names...then don't name them. You are clearly unfairly the victim of toxic bullying here...but you also do some of it Oxyaena. I think the EU is a remarkable project and I am defending it from unreasonable attack from stupid brexit separatists. That isn't to say it doesn't have serious problems. I have myself said that clearly and have pointed out the same problems. However its certainly the best the world has come up with so far. Unless you would like to give an example of a group of countries which have done better than the EU in protecting human rights, raising the standard of living of people to high levels and ensuring that the overwealming majority of people aren't rotting away from problems that aren't their own (imperfectly for sure but the attempt is there). If you can name a group of countries who are DOING THIS BETTER please tell me now. If not then I would appreciate it if you would make an effort not to put words in my mouth again. Claiming something is the most ideal system that has come about yet is NOT SAYING ITS THE BEST POSSIBLE OR PERFECT. The EU has done more than any group of countries anyhwhere to END borders by eliminating 22 of them. Do you know anywhere else on Earth that has effectively removed international borders as the EU has? No...of course you don't cause you don't care about those pesky details when it gets in the way of some broad radical sweeping generalization thats your agenda of the day.
 * Second, you might consider cutting it out with your periodical radical interjections with your intellectual whims as they pop into your head. Okay, I have a problem with borders, therefore instead of working out what the problem is I will declare they are evil. That's so ridiculously extreme and nobody can take it seriously Oxyaena and I'm sure people just tune you out when you do...as I should have. I think nobody would disagree that borders are problematic. But you take it to such a ridiculous reactionary extreme to declare them systematically violent and evil. Well...under that logic...no matter how much you want to weasel yourself out of it, so is your front door. You block you and others off from unrestricted mutual social support when you do so. So I would suggest you take your front door off their hinges and begin ending that violence and evil with your own individual act of defiance. Of course you won't because you cannot admit you participate in that very thing you broadly define as evil and violent. But you do. If you won't take the door off its hinges why would you expect countries to do the same? Or perhaps this time you can erase the broad generalization you've made and start deconstructing the complex nature and problems with boarders instead of just referring to them as entities of violent evil. Shabi  DOO  18:01, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * @Oxyaena re: "borders are inherently violent themselves, serving to control the movement of people, and thereby by extension, control people".
 * Well so is the front door to your house/apartment. It is, under your logic...a tool of violence. Every time you lock your front door you are committing a violent act of neighborhood exclusion. Why then...Oxyaena do you commit such a violent act by locking your front door? If you...however keep your front door always unlocked, I apologize and I take back everything I said...you are clear of perpetuating door/border related acts of violent separatism. Shabi  DOO  23:48, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Strawman noted. The issues caused by borders are legion, look at the plight of the Tohono O'Odham people after being split without their consent by the new Mexican-US border. — Oxyaena Harass  00:49, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah and the social problems caused by people locking themselves off into separate living spaces with locks also creates an ENORMOUS pile of social issues. Do you think somehow its at all different at a smaller level? Seriously? Shabi  DOO  01:08, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Private living spaces aren't three million square miles wide. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  08:51, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think it seems clear you'll just keep scrambling for some manner to keep defending an argument that started badly and you refuse to correct. It's hard to take someone who does that intellectually seriously. Shabi  DOO  18:01, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * How does pointing out that borders cause all sorts of problems a "bad argument"? — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  18:27, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If that was what you had done, I would have wholly supported you. But calling borders inherently violent reduces it to an object of scorn and hyper-simplification, rather than encouraging discussion and exploring the topic further. It's like that with so many topics. I dislike borders in general and, in reality one of the biggest tragedies of Brexit (besides the increased racism and poverty-creation and drops in services that will come with it) is the creation of a new border. It's true the UK did have passport checks but that was the extent of a border it ever had with over 30 EU and a few non-EU countries. There is now a new border where there wasn't one before. But removing borders, as the EU has shown...is an insanely slow and complex project. Dropping barriers too quickly also has its own dangers and can even bring it's own violence with it. Humans are stupid people and even in the most altruistic societies...humans easily and quickly become stupid mob-mentality fuck-ups. Borders are, in general not a good thing. Countries aren't doing enough to foster the lowering of borders. But it will still have to be a very long and painfully drawn out and carefully implemented process. They are necessary evils for time being. You can foster the breaking down of barriers by advocating for softer immigration rules and higher refugee quotas. Not by attacking people who celebrate their identity based on the place they live formed through artificial borders they never put up themselves in the first place nor would likely be against softening if done in a smart and careful way. Shabi  DOO  21:23, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Dang. Sounds like they'd be greatly helped by being able to assert and enforce some kind of boundary around their ancestral lands. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 01:14, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * What does a border do? It keeps unwanted people out. Who are those unwanted people? — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  08:21, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, who are those unwanted people? — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  08:46, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, I don't know... people who might otherwise come along and say "I'll have that"? Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 13:36, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Different times, different conditions. I mean in the present day, even supposedly "progressive" nations like Canada are shrieking against refugees. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  15:34, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Christ. I presume you agree with the proposition that if a) an indigenous people has a clear sense of certain lands as theirs, then b) they must also have some sense of their delineation relative to elsewhere. Now, whether you want to call these perceived boundaries a border, a this-is-ours line, or Shirley fucking Temple for all I care, you don't get to handwave them away because they're inconvenient to your argument. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 16:45, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

"So, tell me, why should I be patriotic?" You don't have to be patriotic, or anything for that matter. But if I could make a recommendation you should cheer up and be a lot less sour with the world. What you believe is basically wrong and boils down to an enormous and highly fallacious 0-sum view of the planet. So don't feel so bad because this is really off base. Neo Stalinist (talk) 01:25, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Too often people think patriotism means doing what your government tells you to no questions asked, that's nationalism, not patriotism. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  23:20, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * My opinion (airhorn) is that there's a violent storm of patriotism and nationalism, dragging both terms away from their origins. How does Patriotism read different from Nationalism?  Well, the quick answer (resident nihilist here, sprinkle yourself in salt and say "I exist as an individual" three times) is patriotism is also based in trust in a government's systems.  To be a patriot, you have to believe in the governance you wave the flag for.  Nationalism is support of the nation, and it's like the quadrilateral version of the patriot's square.  But now we have to Venn the fuck out of patriots and nationalists, because I don't think people who say they are "patriots" but don't agree with the systems under which they are governed have a decent way of expressing themselves.  Progressives and (dare God) socialists exist But how do I claim patriotism when my government says "I care where you're from and what you own?"
 * I'm still a begrudged patriot. But I've defined for myself, with a long, personal answer, why I consider myself a patriot.  I have nationalist notions, but only on a patriotic scale, and I'm all in.  I once took a test that was posted here that called me a "Libertarian Socialist."  I didn't think that was a thing, because it's not.  I'm not an anarchist.  I'm a patriotic socialist leaning progressive who believes in personal liberty as a hallmark of independent state governance.
 * Begrudged Patriot is an easier starting point. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:59, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Is this site nearly dead?
I still don't see any articles on the Intellectual Dark Web, 9/11 truther Eric Weinstein, or his brother Bret Weinstein (made famous for Evergreen University/the Day of Absence,) or Douglas Murray. I don't know to create main articles. MapsofScheming (talk) 17:55, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I've edited your post. Click the red links and go nuts. Otherwise, search for the term, and if it doesn't exist, you'll be given the option to create the page. More general advice on articles here. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 18:07, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It is easy to suggest (RationalWiki:To do list), but much more difficult to do the work well (Category:Cover story articles). Bongolian (talk) 19:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC) Also, take a look at Special:NewPages. Each of us brings our own interests and knowledge to RW, so not everyone is going to be knowledgeable about the articles that you're interested in. Bongolian (talk) 20:32, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I personally knew very little about the intellectual dark web until you just mentioned it. I'll have a go at creating, at the very least a stubbish article. Shabi  DOO  21:12, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The IDW is a group of people who want to be associated on YouTube, e.g., Sam Harris, Eric Weinstein (who is not a Truther by the way), his brother Bret, Ben shapiro (perhaps the only hard right conservative of the IDW) and others basically with anti-authoritarian and often politically incorrect perspectives. They rile both left and right wing views. They don't have enough in common to make a long focused article. If you want to make a registry of IDW people it should be a list of declared associates, as it is more like a club and is not a movement.Ariel31459 (talk) 22:41, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It's mentioned in passing in both the Quillette and Claire Lehmann articles. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 22:59, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Ariel, you're either crazy or just in denial. Multiple studies have found the IDW is an alt-lite gateway to the alt-right. They don't rile the right, but they all rant at the progressive left and hate "The Squad." The only one of their circle-jerk who seems to be voting for Bernie Sanders is Joe Rogan. MapsofScheming (talk) 22:52, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * A Rolling Stone article referring to students at the Federal University of Minas Gerais in Brazil is not really an authority one might depend on. Since you are evidently unaware, the alt-right is a loosely defined set of johnny-come-lately right-wing activists associated by white supremacist tendencies. The so-called Alt-lite is more of a casual insult than an actual definite group of individuals. Also, lots of people are not Sanders supporters. My daughter, a big Hillary supporter despises Sanders. She works in our court house as an advocate for women in domestic violence cases. Ariel31459 (talk) 23:31, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with basically everything you just said, and we have such divergent views that we aren't going to reach a consensus. I laugh at you for telling me I don't know about the Alt-right, and then explaining how people you want to defend have nothing to do with them. Dave Rubin is part of the Intellectual Dark Web and he brought Alt-right Milo Yiannopoulos on to his show and gave him little pushback or criticism. The IDW works to sanitize far-right ideas and to channel people including skeptics over to the dark-side of the political spectrum. It has already red-pilled many atheists into believing in the race science of Charles Murray.MapsofScheming (talk) 00:20, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * We can't reach a consensus because you are more interested in fiction that am I. Laugh all you want. It's a free internet. It is perfectly OK to call out people in media for not calling out the folks you don't like. But if they are exposing someone like Milo by letting him convict himself with his own words, then I think you are not only wrong, but foolish. I am astonished that you admit to believing that people intelligent enough to consider complicated discussions on current events will turn to racism for some undefined purpose in their lives. Calling out media for not having your particular bias is OK. Just don't lie about it. Joe Rogan and other "Alt-lite" people played  key rolls in the downfall of Yianopolis, by interviewing him. You don't have to criticize people if you are revealing who they really are. Race science is a red herring. Racists believe in race science, but it doesn't do them any good because most scientists don't believe it is useful or interesting. One thing I never understood is why racists even care about IQ averages. Just because my group has a median IQ  a bit below your group, that doesn't mean that you are not far below the median for your group and I, am far above the median for mine. Ariel31459 (talk) 01:32, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I haven't personally seen a really great definition of the "intellectual dark web". For a starters, most of the ones that get this classification are Youtube personalities, which is hardly the dark web. A lot of the commentators that get thrown in this pot do seem to have this desire to be "edgy" and "anti-establishment" (so the label excess in this fashion fits in a way). A lot of them are also nouveaux libertarian ideologues, and a lot of them honestly are questionable on the intellectual category. I'm "meh" on if we need an article on this lot (not for, not against, whatever). I'd personally wish for a better label (maybe "South Park Randroid" would work :p ). Soundwave106 (talk) 01:58, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * "Intellectual dark web" is like "Holy Roman Empire:" neither intellectual, dark, or a web. Unfortunately, it's the common term for these idiots, so I'd figure if we're going to have an IDW article, use the label, but immediately point out what a misnomer it is. Colossal Squid (talk) 02:28, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * IDW is a euphemism for sure: from WP, "The term was coined by American venture capital director Eric Weinstein, and was popularized in a 2018 editorial by Bari Weiss. Weinstein's characterization was met with a mixed response, focusing on the assertion that members were supposedly silenced or marginalized, despite being prominent public figures." So, in effect, they are people Weinstein thinks are interesting. Generally with libertarian/anti-authoritarian politics, if any. The problem with creating such an article is, unless it is basically a group of biographies of people Weinstein thinks belong, there is no general description of the members beyond the aforementioned meager premise. I don't care what you want to say about them. Just don't ignore the fact that the only thing that they have in common is Eric Weinstein thinks they are interesting.Ariel31459 (talk) 04:08, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Bullshit. 03:07, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Douglas Murray
Hallo,. I've created the Douglas Murray article, thanks to your request. It took me... a while since I don't know the guy super well. It's far from comprehensive, but I think it's a good start. If anyone else wants to chip in, that'll be good. And if anyone has read his lovely The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam and/or The Madness of Crowds: Gender, Race and Identity, that'll be useful too. 04:00, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Homophobes and Transphobes are like slinkies.
They aren't good for much, but at least it's fun and amusing to push them down the stairs. — <font color="Red">Jeh2ow <font color="Blue">Damn son!  22:02, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm really confused by what your message is. Are you saying it's fun to push homophobes down the stairs? Shabi  DOO  22:12, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Not to cause actual physical harm, it's fun because they're hate-filled douchebags, along with racists, Anti-Semites, Islamophobes, MRAs and Transphobes. — <font color="Red">Jeh2ow <font color="Blue">Damn son!  22:24, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Kill them. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  22:26, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Should they be executed? DepressedAustralian (talk) 22:29, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I am seriously reconsidering my opposition to the death penalty now, and forget about injection and hanging. Let's force them to be fans of the New York Jets. 😏 — <font color="Red">Jeh2ow <font color="Blue">Damn son!  22:34, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * History provides examples of some particularly gruesome execution methods: for example, death by boiling. DepressedAustralian (talk) 22:44, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Try . Or, for a real example, the tongue ripper; just for fun, they'd even get it red hot first. The Blade of the Northern Lights (<font face="MS Mincho" color="black">話して下さい ) 22:49, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Ey, can we not talk about killing other people? This discussion went far off the rails. 00:38, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oxyaena I have to say I'm pretty disturbed by your incitement to kill people you don't agree with (regardless of how vile they can be). Could you please stop doing that? Shabi  DOO  00:48, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't support killing anyone. But, if people want to tell everyone how much they'd like to kill certain people, I say let them do so. Let us all see what kind of person they really are. DepressedAustralian (talk) 00:52, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * We were kidding, we won't actually kill anyone. The death penalty is to useless and uneeded. — <font color="Red">Jeh2ow <font color="Blue">Damn son!  00:58, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Joking about things helps to normalise them and can eventually lead to actually doing them. DepressedAustralian (talk) 01:01, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The stair thing? Maybe. Killing people? I think it's toxic and hateful. I think it's pretty much doing the very thing you're fighting against. Shabi  DOO  01:05, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I couldn't tell if you guys were kidding, and I still wouldn't advocate that sort of thing. Right-wing trolls talk about killing socialists all the time, yet we'd immediately find it unacceptable. I hate bigots a lot too, and even I wished harm right-wing leaders like Trump and Bolsonaro, and CEOs, due to their harming tons of peple, but still not appropriate to suggest it. You, I get. Oxyaena, though. I'm pretty concerned about. She wants cops to die. She wants landlords to die. She now wants homophobes and transphobes to die. I'm really not sure if she means it or not and it disturbs me. 01:06, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I was about to say. It's the third (fourth?) time suggesting we kill people she doesn't agree with. It worries me. Shabi  DOO  01:09, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Hate and anger are powerful drugs. And it is foolish to suggest that people of a particular political/ideological persuasion have a monopoly on them. DepressedAustralian (talk) 01:11, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note to those shitposting about killing: Please avoid emulating 4Chan style shitposting in the future. Thank you. (And seriously, human history is filled with examples of the oppressed powerless actually becoming the powerful, and then acting just as shitty as their former oppressors. Don't be a good demonstration why this is the case.) Soundwave106 (talk) 01:43, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I’m pretty certain that Oxy’s just venting. I used to be in a much darker place in my life, and I mouthed off and said things I didn’t mean plenty of times. 02:24, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, you can't change the past, but I just want to develop a habit where you get better control of your feelings and not type out such strong things you'll regret. I've done it on the wiki, I've seen others do it, I just don't want to normalize it. Also, venting is a very unhealthy means to cope with your emotions, so you should try to explore healthier ways to be angry. 04:13, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Now I am a fan of ironic and painful punishment. My idea for religious fanatics who cause harm- crucifixion! Just saw the post about being like 4chan after my comment posted, internet is acting up --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:49, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * ,, : Cut out all the talk of how it would be good to kill or harm people. It is not something that should be joked about. It is grounds for permabanning as far as I'm concerned. Bongolian (talk) 02:26, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Crucifixion is still a brutal kind of death. Please not talk about it? If you want to wish for bad things to people, just wish for toilets failing to flush or finding cockroaches in cookware or something. 04:13, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * My idea of a punishment is to have their toilets back up every time they use it. 05:35, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Give ‘em an upper decker. 20:00, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, it was a shitpost. I won't do it again. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  10:39, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Just as an FYI, I`m a survivor of domestic violence, so..... conflict is a trigger for my PTSD. I`m not a violent person irl. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  11:19, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Your proposed solution to a number of problems has been "kill them". If you are no longer going to give that response then that would be a plus.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 13:28, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it will not happen again. I will not even try to justify what I said. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 21:00, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I appreciate that. Bongolian (talk) 21:32, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Palindrome
It is 02/02/2020.

Were there any predictions linked to the date? Anna Livia (talk) 22:49, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Where I am it is 2020-02-03 already. You are living in the past. DepressedAustralian (talk) 22:54, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * From my point of view, the Jedi are evil. 23:03, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * But the message was posted within the relevant 24-hour timeslot - and the disagreements will be more so in future years (dd/mm/yyyy and mm/dd/yyyy). Anna Livia (talk) 23:14, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Somewhere, somehow, somebody just took a shit. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  11:00, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * There I sit broken hearted
 * Came to shit, but only farted
 * Later on I took a chance
 * Tried to fart, but shit me pants Comrade General Pootis (talk) 14:20, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Is posting insipid quatrains block-worthy? I don't think it is. Should it be?Ariel31459 (talk) 16:47, 3 February 2020 (UTC)



Dammit I’m mad.

Evil is a deed as I live.

God, am I reviled? I rise, my bed on a sun, I melt.

To be not one man emanating is sad. I piss.

Alas, it is so late. Who stops to help?

Man, it is hot. I’m in it. I tell.

I am not a devil. I level “Mad Dog”.

Ah, say burning is, as a deified gulp,

In my halo of a mired rum tin.

I erase many men. Oh, to be man, a sin.

Is evil in a clam? In a trap?

No. It is open. On it I was stuck.

Rats peed on hope. Elsewhere dips a web.

Be still if I fill its ebb.

Ew, a spider… eh?

We sleep. Oh no!

Deep, stark cuts saw it in one position.

Part animal, can I live? Sin is a name.

Both, one… my names are in it.

Murder? I’m a fool.

A hymn I plug, deified as a sign in ruby ash,

A Goddam level I lived at.

On mail let it in. I’m it.

Oh, sit in ample hot spots. Oh wet!

A loss it is alas (sip). I’d assign it a name.

Name not one bottle minus an ode by me:

“Sir, I deliver. I’m a dog”

Evil is a deed as I live.

Dammit I’m mad.

Cardinal Chang (talk) 09:41, 5 February 2020 (UTC)


 * And they say man couldn't invent God, HOLY SHIT FUCK IT UP Cardinal Chang!!!! Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:13, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Taking a break from zombie novel writing and oddly...........
Working on a children's book about tolerance and understanding towards those with disabilities. Actually I have been meaning to do this sort of thing for over a year. Hey, I can be compassionate. Don't judge me, I am a decent person --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:19, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a spectacular idea!!! Shabi  DOO  02:10, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Uber
Uber isn't allowed to operate as it does in most countries here so its really just a normal cab that uses the uber app, is slightly cheaper and has better customer service. I've heard people from North America claim uber is one of the greatest things to ever happen. I know that its a lot more unregulated in the US than in some countries but its still hard to see what is so amazingly fantastic about it. Why do people LOOOOOOOOOOOOVE uber so much and what's so great about it? Shabi DOO  02:34, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I can think of only because it's a quick way to make some money that can help college-age students...I guess? 04:14, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I wanted to work for it just because I'm really strapped for a job and I'm ashamed to say that I find job hunting to be really difficult for me. I was discouraged though because my parents are concerned for my safety (I'm a woman in her 20s and at like 100lbs and I've read accounts by other women of some really bad instances generally at night and picking up drunkards though the overall experience has been okay) and even I'm reluctant to be a driver. I think it's relatively easy to be an Uber driver compared to being a taxi driver, at least on surface. BabyLuigiOnFire: you might think it's a job for college age students but a big portion of drivers are former taxi drivers and the demographic leans largely white middle-aged men (that has largely surprised me). Anyhow aside from working from it, using it, well, you don't have to wait for a cab. Uber drivers tend to be anyone that has a car really (though not two-door coupes), and I think it's cheaper than a taxi? You can also leave reviews for drivers (as well as giving reviews for riders too). 04:20, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems to be a difficult job to do long-term as one's sole source of income. There are people who drive full time and cannot afford a place to live. Uber drivers mostly all drive newish leased vehicles because — I don't know if it's because the customers hate older vehicles or because Uber requires it. Most Uber drivers also drive for Lyft, which is basically the same service. In the pre-Uber days, it could be quite difficult to get a taxi during commute hours or other busy times. Bongolian (talk) 07:14, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The reason the people I’ve met who liked Uber thought it was so great, was basically that it was a lot cheaper than a cab fare with the unspoken premises that everyone has a right to be able to take a cab anywhere and anytime they want, that cab riders do not have the right to earn a decent wage and that government regulations of the taxi sector is just red tape. Although some of the “But it’s so cheap, hurrah!” crowd probably don’t think far enough ahead to realise the corollaries, I have met some who articulated one or more of them outright. And yes, before Uber was banned in my country, I can testify to it being MUCH cheaper than a cab ride. I took one once, as there was a general breakdown in train transport and I shared an Uber with other stranded passengers who had the app in order for me to get to a family event 40 km away. But generally I wouldn’t use Uber, just like I won’t fly RyanAir, if I have any realistic alternatives, as the latter treats its employees like shit and either tries to avoid collective bargaining or resort to outright union busting.
 * The problem with Uber, as I see it, is that in its original, US guise, it is essentially a outfit with an app, just like Airbnb tends to be an operation that allows people to skirt regulation (such as fire safety etc.) normally governing hotel operators and other “professional” accommodation providers (and yes, there are people who only use Airbnb to rent out their flat while they’re vacationing somewhere else themselves, but people did this long before Airbnb).
 * Hence, while companies such as Uber and Airbnb like to portray themselves as part of a new “sharing economy”, this is basically greenwashing and a way to give themselves an ethical varnish. Even worse is the ideology that they typify, especially Uber, that the people working for them are not employees, but “independent contractors”, which, just like Uber’s claim to be a ride share service, is simply a legal fiction to avoid taking the kind of responsibilities other companies have.
 * These aspects are of course why such “pirate app” companies are able to offer their services at much lower prices, but it is essentially neither new nor particularly useful to society in general and downright dangerous, if you think that regulating these kinds of sectors is necessary and/or that companies should take responsibility for their employees. Fortunately, a series of governments, regulators and courts have curtailed Uber outside the US, just as is beginning to happen with Airbnb. ScepticWombat (talk) 07:42, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't forget we have a page on Uber if you think you might have anything to contribute to it. Pre-Uber taxi companies primarily operated as regulated oligopolies in urban areas: there were a limited number of taxi companies and taxi medallions, and taxi fees were fixed by the local government. Taxis could only compete on service (location, hours of operation, promptness, courtesy), but there probably wasn't much incentive for that. Post-Uber/Lyft competition became more of a competitive monopoly; this inherently hurt the taxi companies because they still had the burdens of regulation, medallion fees, and fixed rates. Bongolian (talk) 20:56, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, Uber is much cheaper because it's losing billions of dollars every year. --Annanoon (talk) 10:43, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The ol' get a monopoly and raise prices two step. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:29, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Super Bowl Halftime Show
Can't wait to see all those youtube videos about the Super Bowl Halftime Show being satanic, BurnOutHQ 12:39, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I find myself fully able to wait - or, for that matter, understand the issue. Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 13:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Did not watch, but from what I can Google, it seems generally well received. There are a few folks, generally on the "moral right" (LOL Fox News comment section) complaining about pelvic thrusts or something as if Elvis was a nouveaux moral degeneracy (my gut feel is that it was standard MTV dance-pop dance choreography stuff, the crowd that is complaining would complain about *everything* in this line -- unless it was good ol' fashion da 1950s sexy approved, like say good ol' American cheerleaders or the Rockettes or something -- and since in general the crowd that is complaining is strongly aligning with the crowd that supports Donald Trump, they have lost all rights to complain about the "morals" of *anything*). There are also a few idiots complaining about oh noes or something. Also apparently Shakira did a vocalization common in Arabic music that sparked memes. But overall it seems more people like the show I think, in particular they are liking the fact that 40+ year old gals can headline an MTV dance-popesque show, and there's also a fair bit of commentary liking the Latin flavor.  Soundwave106 (talk) 14:12, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Then again, Shakira has Arab ancestry, and a lot of her music apparently had Arab roots. Since she's from Colombia, this is evidence that the say-tan-ic NFL wants more dark-skinned people playing, according to a bunch of idiot conspiracy nuts. — <font color="Red">Jeh2ow <font color="Blue">Damn son!  14:24, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Their "music" is worse than water torture, and Lopez looked like she was missing the whip from her BDSM dungeon or something. Is it too much to ask for some heavy metal or any music that actually goes with football? It's a high-energy game, people crashing into each other... and a halftime show with severely underdressed people dancing around, or whatever the hell that was. The Blade of the Northern Lights (<font face="MS Mincho" color="black">話して下さい ) 15:24, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I sort of watched it, but it was very much That Sort of Thing with drilling dancers and very few actual musicians. I somehow missed the transition where JLo handed off to Shakira, who for some reason I thought was dead anyways.  I couldn't tell one pop-tart from the other, so it somewhat surprised me when it was suddenly over. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 15:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Wasn't a big fan of it, but for Super Bowl Halftime Show standards, it wasn't too bad. MILLION times better than the bullshit Halftime Show of last year, especially considering that Sweet Victory got SNUBBED out of the show for no fucking reason at all (but leave it to none other than my favorite hockey team, the Dallas Stars, to give that to us instead). Aaronmichael5 16:52, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * We've got charlie kirk out there saying that multimillionaire women dancing without as much clothes as he deems appropriate is the same thing as sex trafficking. Similar levels of stupid and insane.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:12, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I wonder who reads his books. One would like to say, "idiots, of course." But then, do idiots read books? Are these just coffee table books?Ariel31459 (talk) 18:02, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * "We know how this goes", but unbelievably he has 1.5 million Twitter followers. Even though I basically want to add after almost every single tweet he makes. Soundwave106 (talk) 18:27, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That's actually the kind of basis he wants to be challenged on, because there's a plethora of right wing pseudo-intellectual publications that can give a verbose and intellectually dishonest gish gallop citation to almost any insane right wing idea. If you go up to one of those "debate me" assholes with "citation needed", they'll absolutely have a book titled "the new politics of sex" where an insane asshole pontificates for 200 pages about how no fault divorce created the international sex trafficking rings and then liberals used that to increase government regulation as part of an extended program to destroy society.   Try to decide for yourself if I made that example up.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:57, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Heh, I cheated by using Google, so, um, yeah. You kind of know what to expect when "nation of beta-male Pajama Boys" appears in a quoted review. Soundwave106 (talk) 19:27, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Idiots read books too, why else would someone buy Mein Kampf? — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  23:53, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Man politicians loooove to write books. Who actually reads those? Huh. 00:12, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I bought Nixon's autobiography, that's the only exception I`m willing to make. I am not a crook. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  01:32, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * They're called "unread bestsellers", books that people buy not because they want to read them, but because they're popular and are being talked about, so having it on their bookshelves will make them look smart and well-read. KevinR1990 (talk) 08:34, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Shakira is from Colombia. is a female personification of the United States. Spud (talk) 06:54, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Huh, I wonder why Americans fail to see that. Maybe they just simply hate anyone with a name that doesn't sound English. — <font color="Red">Jeh2ow <font color="Blue">Damn son!  14:14, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Certain segments of America let their "true colors" show whenever the opportunity arises to speak ills of famous people, especially if they are in a certain minority group. (in other news, water is wet.) These threads, when they arise on your Breitbarts, are extremely popular in the comments section because you can pretend to be all high and mighty and get whatever endorphin kick moralizers get, calling people in costumes that wouldn't be out of place at Cirque du Soleil "hookers" and "strippers" and whatnot. Of course, we know what's really going on. (I remember when Whitney Houston died, the Fox News commentary section got so racist that they actually nuked it.) This is also why the Breitbart peanut gallery is fairly mum on, say, Melania Trump (this is not a problem either, but she revealed far more skin in GQ magazine photo shoot years ago). Soundwave106 (talk) 16:01, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Is Boris Johnson an Authoritarian?
I am utterly fucking appalled at today's flagrant breach of the free press, banning sections of the media that are critical of Johnson's government outright, and reflects the authoritarian desire for the state to have control over the pesky media. So it begs the question: is Boris Johnson an authoritarian, and if not, is the right question 'Will Boris Johnson become an authoritarian in the future?' Minish (talk) 16:34, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Though he ain't Putin, Boris most definitely is flirting with tyranny. However, we can't be sure yet; where he will really show his true colours is in his response to Scottish independence and the inevitable resurgence of dissident republican activities in Northern Ireland. Comrade General Pootis (talk) 18:24, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh look you think the free speech warriors will shed tears over this? 19:28, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No, but you can count on some Irish republicans making large payments to parking meters and heavy use of the postal service (if you know what I mean). Comrade General Pootis (talk) 14:32, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No he isn't, because he's not allowed to be. But he would like to be, and he'll see how far he can get with trying it on. Aloysius the Gaul 20:11, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * indeed. nothing so far is remotely authoritarian. I suspect people want him to be to make opposition to him seem more 'righteous'. hes already shown 'his true colours' with Scottish independence by denting another referendum. what more do people think he can do? as with dissident republicans - that is by no means inevitable and again, what is it people think he will do? any with any sense are not worrying about authoritarianism but what his government will do to serves like the nhs or to workers rights. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:46, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Because it's impossible to worry about both in conjunction? Minish (talk) 19:03, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Should preface that I actually agree with you that the latter is more likely and concerning, but I resent your attitude of "any with any sense" should already agree with you, especially since I prefaced my post as a question. Minish (talk) 19:09, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Coronavirus Estimates
The Chinese coronavirus has been making headlines and recently overtook the 2003 Sars epidemic for both incidents and deaths in China. How bad do people think the spread is going to get? Is it likely to be of the level of the 2009 Swine Flu where over 10% of the global population contracted it? MirrorIrorriM (talk) 10:41, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The common flu kills more people annual than the coronavirus has, it mostly affects immunocompromised people. I recommend not panicking. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  14:06, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I like traveling, but now is the time to forget it if you wanna stay healthy. Also, there are two things I wanna mention. There is a disease related to the coronavirus called that causes lung disease, and most people get it during Hajj as they come into contact with infected camels. And second, there is so much fear over the coronavirus that some racists on the alt-right start tormenting Chinese people as dangerous and infected with a plague. — <font color="Red">Jeh2ow  <font color="Blue">Damn son!  14:24, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You're likely to be healthier and safer in several other countries as a tourist than your own country. If you're from the UK you'd likely be safer while traveling in Finland. If you're in the US you're likely safer in Canada. They are extremely sanitary and when they have any outbreak they really go utterly NUTS to contain it (that includes having people stand outside subway and bus stops train stations airports and even busy elevators squirting antibacterials into the hands of everyone getting off). And even with an outbreak...you'd still need an enormous dose of bad luck to get sick unless you fly right into Wuhan China or visit disaster zone hospitals. Go ahead and travel your hearts away. I've been to every kind of disease infested tropical danger zone, and I never got sick as long as I got my jabs, was careful with water, cautious (but not crazy) about food and simply have a good book handy if you get Dehli Belly or Tehran tummy for a day. Comprehensive travel insurance also helps. And if you're in India...don't spend too much time hanging out with animals near garbage piles in the middle of traffic circles. You might get sick if you do and the smell gets gross and the animals can be grumpy and an out of control motorcycle could crash right into you. Shabi  DOO  15:47, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Antibacterial isn't particularly effective against viruses (and not at all unless it has 60% alcohol). Note that washing hands with regular soap is effective against both bacteria and viruses: the soap is antibacterial, and if one rubs one's hands while washing long enough and thoroughly enough it kills viruses. It's the rubbing that does it for viruses, not the soap. It would have to be 90% alcohol solution to do any good against viruses, which is not generally given to the public for this purpose. Bongolian (talk) 20:23, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This is why the national health requires the availability of 90% non-toxic ethanol for everyone at the base cost of production. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 21:31, 4 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Just heard on NPR: China reports about 400 dead and 20,000 sick. That's about 2% mortality rate so far. Ariel31459 (talk) 21:00, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * 20,000 sick enough that they've gone to a doctor. We don't know how many just decide to stay home for a few days.  It's a lot like the flu, the common cold, or other coronavirus diseases: we've got only a vague idea of how many people have a mild case. --65.101.119.25 (talk) 00:56, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know the details unfortunately Bongolian. I do know that Toronto contained Sars quickly and effectively (as did Hong Kong). I don't know to what extent the liquid they sprayed on to people's hands helped or if it was a combination of other policies or a bunch of luck or all of the above. Shabi  DOO  07:03, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Your Taiwan correspondent here can tell you this. I went to the doctor's on Monday to get a repeat prescription for my high blood pressure medication. I wasn't allowed in without a surgical mask on my face. That's the only way the virus has interfered with my daily life. So far. Spud (talk) 07:11, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Defining violence
I had a talk with GC on Discord and he called me out for using ingroup jargon too much without explaining myself, thereby confusing people less immersed in left wing political theory than I am, so I decided to write this little entry to help clear some things up. When I say "borders are violent" that's not a misnomer, there're more than one kind of violence, the type of violence people normally associate with that word is just one form of violence. There're subtler forms of violence too, ones that may not be as obvious but have just as much of an impact, if not even more so, than bombings, assassinations, and shootings.

This subtler type of violence has been dubbed "discursive violence" by political theorists, and is the type of violence I am referring to when I say that "borders are violent." Discursive violence can be seen, for example, in the abusive language people like Trump use to refer to immigrants, or gentrification.

I`m sorry for not clarifying myself earlier, I should've have done so beforehand. Mea culpa. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  17:18, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Violence is when white people get hurt, the whiter they are the more violent it is. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:51, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Conversely, the browner they are the less violent it is. /s — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  19:04, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Borders are violent in the same way that taxation is theft. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 21:22, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Your concern for the "plight of the Tohono O'Odham people" called. Seemed worried about contradicting your guff about the inherent (discursive (!)) violence of borders. Said I'd pass it on. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 21:33, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Your lack of understanding nuance is duly noted. The issue with the Tohono O'Odham is that they had others decide their fate without any input from them, it was a complete disregard of their inherent right to self determination as a people. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  21:56, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You really are a fucking moron, aren't you? Try and walk me through the bit where the TO can even begin to speak about their ancestral lands without some conceptualisation of their borders. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 22:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Modern concepts of borders weren't really in vogue amongst nomadic hunter gatherer communities, try again. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  22:56, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * So now it's modern concepts of borders? OK. Let's consider the modern TO. They've even got a website. What do you imagine happens when these modern people discuss the geographical extent of their ancestral lands? If they drew me a line on a map and said "This is ours", would they be engaging in discursive violence? Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 23:39, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This is not helpful, I can find papers that explore the link between violence and cartography. And in particular, colonial cartography (which often ignored tribal distinction) has been flagged as at least a partial cause for violence in the Middle East and Africa in particular. Nation-state borders do not *implicitly* mean conflict, and are usually not the single cause of conflict, but can exasperate violence. If one was to argue against Oxyaena's more expansive concept which IMHO is over-applied, that's fine, but this is not a "fucking moronic" topic. Soundwave106 (talk) 01:43, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Given that simply trying to point out that "borders do not *implicitly* mean conflict" is precisely what got this started, you can fuck right off with your finger wagging, son. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 02:40, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I am finger-wagging your ad hominem attack, mainly (noting that you even ad-hominemed my reply). You want to continue, go ahead, this is not the best way to change anyone's mind. Soundwave106 (talk) 04:50, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Nope. You waded in with an self-righteous akshually without bothering to read the thread first. Try it in a real life conversation sometime and see what happens. Bonus points for misapplying ad-hom twice on the way out, despite linking to the article that explains all about it. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 13:44, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * LOL. And I quote, "you really are a fucking moron" is a "misapplied" definition of an ad hominem attack. Same with "fuck right off with your finger wagging, son". Whoo-ee, we have an Internet Tough Guy here who is *absolutely* not debating by insulting the person, no sir-ee! Try *those* phrases in a real life conversation sometime and see what happens. Soundwave106 (talk) 14:24, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Ad hom: not what you think it is. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 16:16, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If you had a valuable point with your insulting bullshit, your link would be relevant. But you really don't. The Tohono O’odham Nation was seasonally migratory, traditionally, with "borders" being fluid and determined more by natural forces. This of course would be far from the idea of a "man made" concept of a US / Mexico border. The nation-state borders *are* causing conflict with the tribe, perhaps not the violent kind at the moment, but conflict nonetheless. This short of shit *easily* escalates to violence in many, many other cases. In other words, the main problem here is more Oxyaena's black-and-white over-application. Which you claim is your point to argue. But how can you prove a point when you pile on with black and white insults for something that is not actually *100%* bullshit, and which something where your own comprehension seems lacking to begin with? Soundwave106 (talk) 17:08, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * FWIW, my favourite bit of this whole thread was your "LOL! I totally know what ad hominem is! You used bad words and insults!" Great work, champ. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 20:56, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This will sound strange, but borders make maps highly useful for me personally. Being someone with The Big A, I routinely calm myself by looking at maps, either state-level (I've been to every town in 2 US states, and almost all of those at least twice, so those are favorites), country, or international (at any phase in history). I know the history of the myriad problems borders have created, but staring at maps often helps me get control of myself in a way rocking might help someone lower functioning. Don't really love that about me, but I'd have long ago jumped out of my skin without that valve. (I know this is tangential at very best, but in that regard borders reduce violence from me; if you ever saw me watch sports, you'd understand) The Blade of the Northern Lights (<font face="MS Mincho" color="black">話して下さい ) 02:30, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay let's put aside Helena's toxic dickish style. I still want to know Oxyaena how you rectify your stand on borders being inherently violent (which I think is pointlessly extreme) with the right of indigenous groups to keep their land. I'm sure you support, for example, the Blackfoot tribes in Nova Scotia Canada to keep their ancestral land which is under threat for resource exploitation. And yet in order to do that they have to demarcate what that territory is. That effectively sets up a border prohibiting any number of activity on that part of the land and giving them autonomy to set up whatever rules they want within in (as long as it is within parts of National law) and their right to (in a limited sense) police their own territory as they see fit and kick trespassers out including transients and homeless people, stop people from finishing in there, camping or setting up temporary shelters, immigrating or setting up a house without permission and so on. This isn't an artificial question or a "what if" scenario. It's a real life problem. You have two issues which you consider precious (indigenous rights and the inherent violence of borders) which you'd like to support and yet conflict with one another. I think they only way out of it is explaining either how indigenous borders aren't violent (or why they are permissible and other's aren't). Or just ignore the problem or leave it to others to work out. I myself am extremely interested in anyone who is able to explain this. Shabi  DOO  06:59, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * One can take an ideological stance against borders and still support indigenous rights and organizing. You have to look at the power differences between the Blackfoot in Canada (my brother in law's like a quarter Blackfoot btw) and the sovereign state Canada itself, there's a huge power disparity there that sort of nullifies any objections one might otherwise have about this subject. We don't live in a vacuum, the world is in constant flux, and there's no room for what Zizek calls "pure ideology." Anyways, that's my two cents, make of it what you will. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  07:36, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I fail to see how user Helena Bonham Carter harassing Oxyaena is different from random IP addresses. I think both should be punished the same. I'm looking through archives, and it's just you over and over, calling Oxyaena a moron, saying they don't have reading comprehension, mocking their posts without even needing to be mentioned, swearing at them. I don't know if you're obsessed with Oxy, or if you're just a colossal prick, but screw off. Minish (talk) 09:56, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Screw off? Is your mother monitoring your internet use? Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 13:44, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I've dealt with plenty of bullies in my life. You're no different. Minish (talk) 13:51, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oxyaena. That isn't an answer. You said we "have to take a look at the differences". What are those differencces? The only notable difference I see is the difference of scale and a few criminal code laws that really have little bearing on this topic. There are many Canadian/Australian indigenous territories that we cannot enter even if we wanted to. There are lots of micro-states out there. Size is irrelevant. Blackfoot have to consider certain Canadian laws but they are still allowed to restrict entry, movement, settlement, immigration, land use, transience, homelessness, prohibition of certain sales and products etc. Please be specific. That wasn't two cents. Those borders all have the same "violent" nature that you've expressed before. Or do they? Shabi  DOO  11:42, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You mentioned the scale, that's exactly it. You also have to take things like history into account, the Blackfeet are still subject to settler colonialism by the colonialist Canadian government, had their inherent human rights violated because they were deemed "inferior" to white people, and are still having to deal with the consequences of colonialism some hundred years on. I think exceptions can be made, nuance is important. I already said we don't live in a vacuum, and I acknowledge my statement may have been too overly generalized. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  14:35, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Your remarkable verbosity doesn't appear to be reaping any greater dividends than my toxic dickishness. Extracting a minor walk back of patently absurd claims shouldn't be this fucking difficult. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 13:44, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It sometimes requires being specific including disclaimers, to get specific replies. Some people have a harder time than others walking back on things. Having said that...why don't you fuck off with your toxic assholery. No one here wants to see it. Shabi  DOO  14:19, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

After (let's count them!) one, two, three, four attempts to engage on the issue, I happen to think some genuine anger is entirely justified after yet another handwave / non-answer. I don't honestly know whether she's arguing in bad faith or just plain bad at following her own claims to their logical conclusion, but I see no pressing reason why Oxy should be granted a longer leash than any random anti-vaxxer or Flat Earth-er when talking obvious rubbish. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 16:16, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oxyaena in the previous thread was already rightly called out for irrational angry insults, and I've called out her shitposting before. I'll also call out your shitposting, as several others are doing now. It's no different. Take that toxic argumentative shit to toxic environments like Twitter or something. Soundwave106 (talk) 17:17, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You spelt "talking about killing people" wrong. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 20:56, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * How are those non-answers? I've stated several times I was in the wrong for over-generalizing. Fuck off. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  17:38, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't think an in-depth analysis of the inadequacy of your replies is helpful at this point, but briefly: I repeat what I said above: it shouldn't be this difficult to extract a minor walk back of patently absurd claims. What's more, I've seen you follow this pattern a bunch of times, and frankly, it's wearing thin, and I stand by my description of it feeling like arguing with an anti-vaxxer or Flat Earth-er.
 * 1) You make a stupid statement about borders being inherently violent.
 * 2) General reaction is wtf? You display no interest in budging an inch.
 * 3) A few days later, it's now "discursive" violence that apparently justifies your (still stupid) claim "borders are violent".
 * 4) More wtf? ensues. Tempers are lost.
 * 5) Finally, you make the kinda sorta concession that your statement may (?!) have been too overly generalized.

You apparently take pride in your anti-creationist activism. Stop acting like one. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 20:56, 5 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't know if this is some Old Guard self-importance, or if you are genuinely that arrogant that you think you can retroactively justify your """genuine anger""" (AKA: bullying and harassment) - unjustifiable behaviour worthy of mod intervention ASAP - by now calling Oxyaena delusional and comparing her to a flat-earther. You know no bounds. Shame on you. Minish (talk) 17:40, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Cool story, Lancelot. Shame on me indeed. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 20:56, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You. Helena Bonham Carter. Stop. 21:12, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Astonishing. You are literally incapable of just swallowing your pride and apologising for your actions, to the point that you're now buckling down and just flat out poisoning the well. Minish (talk) 21:20, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * So when marginalized people define and enforce borders...it's not violent? Or is it just the case that those violent borders are acceptable because they are marginalized? Shabi  DOO  20:47, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The latter. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  21:26, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

A lot of "left-wing political theory" involves coming up with specific definitions of terms like "violence" or "racism" which are different from the definitions used outside of those circles. But, why should anyone who doesn't agree with that political point of view accept left-wing political theorists' definitions of those terms? And why do adherents of that worldview often show so little awareness or acknowledgement that other ways of defining those terms even exist? DepressedAustralian (talk) 01:17, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

The opposite of Holy Goat Scriptures
Fun:Unholy Book of Supra Tech Fox

If in real life there is Christianity and Satanism, why not Goatism and Foxism? --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:25, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I think I know what "foxism" is. — <font color="Red">Jeh2ow <font color="Blue">Damn son!  18:30, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * So Sean Hannity is a "Foxist", then? 2A02:1812:2C66:D000:A893:912F:C8D2:714B (talk) 00:56, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Nicholas G. Carr
Hey, I know we have a section at the bottom of the "Internet" page saying to ignore people that say the internet/World Wide Web is making people stupid, but I just found Nicholas Carr's book The Shallows: What the Internet is Doing to Our Brains in my university library's database, and, after doing a little research, I'm kinda disturbed by how seriously neuroscientists and scholars are taking his claims. What do you guys think? Do his claims have merit, and if not, is it worth making a page for him and/or similar New Media critics? AlexUnknown (talk) 07:45, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * "Stupid" is the wrong word, the few papers I have found actually diving deeper into the issue seem to argue that the Internet encourages "“shallow” information processing behaviors characterized by rapid attention shifting and reduced deliberations", engaging in "increased multitasking behaviors that are linked to increased distractibility and poor executive control abilities.". This is poorly studied from what I can see to make *too* many conclusions; other than the above paywalled link, I could only find one other deep article (not pay-walled, yay!) (on an admittedly "shallow" quick search). I would agree with the later article that saying the Internet is "making us stupid" is a *very* premature conclusion, but I can see an argument, where the Internet has increased the *scope* of people's knowledge, but not necessarily the *depth*. More intelligent in some ways due to the easy access of information, in other words, but also with way more possibility for the Dunning-Kruger effect to come into play (a Wiki article is hardly going to make you an expert), and also way more possibilities for *misinformation* to circulate due to confirmation bias (since any idiot can act like an authority on the Internet, and communities can form where legitimate knowledge is actually blocked out in favor of feel-good bullshit). Soundwave106 (talk) 15:51, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem I have is that this argument resurges every time technology makes information more accessible. Two historical examples Carr references are Socrates in Phaedrus and Hieronimo Squarciafico's reaction to Johannes Gutenberg's printing press. Socrates argues that writing will make people forgetful and think they have knowledge when they actually don't because they're only reading symbols off a piece of paper instead of talking to someone that can answer questions and defend themselves (I would argue that the internet actually helps mitigate this). Squarciafico is known for complaining that "Abundance of books makes men less studious." Carr believes that the invention of writing was worth the loss of memory and made the general population more knowledgeable, yet doesn't believe the increased accessibility the internet gives us is worth the loss of concentration and, supposedly, comprehension. He thinks Squarciafico's criticism is more applicable to the web than printing. What bugs me is that each of these examples has the implication that humanity was better off when information was less accessible, especially to less privileged populations. AlexUnknown (talk) 20:36, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This is true. Probably this is why only a few academics are wading in; in the past new information technology (eg printed press, radio, television) created a disruption of sorts that took a long time to scope out the effect, which in the end was minimal once everyone got used to it. Soundwave106 (talk) 13:21, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I decided to not create a new page and just added some stuff to the "Opposition" section of our Internet page. Hopefully, this all blows over when the next wave of new information technology hits. Then, we can do this all over again!AlexUnknown (talk) 09:14, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Observation
When I look at 'Recent changes' in the morning to see what has happened there seem to be far fewer entries/longer gaps between additions than there used to be.

Is this 'the usual Rationalwiki ebb and flow of activity' or is there something longer term? Anna Livia (talk) 11:32, 5 February 2020 (UTC)


 * This has been going on for a while, most activity on the wiki occurs on the bar nowadays. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  14:37, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * FuzzyCatPotato used to do visualizations of editting. I think he got a Real Job or possibly A Life.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:36, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * As I said, an observation to encourage people to do more. Possibly, also, some of the 'repetitive egregious nuisances and contribution-reversion generators' have been blocked/realised nobody cares enough about their inane natterings to start off a troll-feeding-frenzy. Anna Livia (talk) 19:01, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Only people capable of shame; I'm exempt. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:21, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I have noticed the lack of interest in articulating in main spaces. I just visited Barnes and Nobles and came away embarrassed by my own neglect. There is plenty to write about.Ariel31459 (talk) 20:04, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Speak for yourselves. I still edit mainspace. 20:22, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Consistently high-quality mainspace editors win an AwesomeAward on their talk pages, given by fellow editors. There are still several of us who are active in mainspace (Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:AwesomeAward). Feel free to pipe up if you think you've been overlooked. Bongolian (talk) 20:39, 5 February 2020 (UTC)