RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive330

The "Representation Fallacies"
I would like to draw your attention to the following fallacies, which I dubbed the "Representation Fallacies."

Representation Fallacy, Premise: The believe that if a category C of people constitute a percentage P of the whole population then, naturally, in any field F of human activities, we should expect to find a percentage P of people belonging to the category C.

Representation Fallacy, Discrimination Conclusion: If, instead of the percentage P, a smaller (respectively, greater) percentage is found, then it means that field F is unjustly discriminating against (respectively, in favor of) the category C.

Representation Fallacy, Predisposition Conclusion: If, instead of the percentage P, a smaller (respectively, greater) percentage is found, then it means that the category C has a smaller (respectively, greater) predisposition to field F.

On the one hand, who falls for the "Discrimination Conclusion" of the "Representation Fallacies" wants regulations or politics to change the percentage of category C in field F in ordered to make it equal to P. On the other hand, who falls for the "Predisposition Conclusion" of the "Representation Fallacies" wants to keep the status quo of field F and thus opposes any changes.

How can these fallacies being fight and how a correct understanding of population Vs field representation can be achieved? CaptainMarvel (talk) 14:55, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I will bite, a little: The usage of quotas as a tool to encourage diversity is not universally accepted. Nonetheless, diversity as a whole is largely seen as beneficial to any field (go to Google and hit up most management studies on this topic). Best application would be to develop methods for that remove systematic bias as much as possible, without any numerical forcing. An example here would be blind auditions for orchestras.
 * Usually, CaptainMarvel, when I've seen this sort of "quotation", it's someone that is trying to mask shitty culture and bias that often accounts for a larger percentage of participation differences than the complainer thinks. This issue for instance has arisen *a lot* in computer programming communities -- the percentage of women, unlike most university level degrees, has fallen since the 1980s, bucking the trend of most other academia. Too often the explanation for this from the naive is that women have this innate inability to code. There may be "some" innate gender differences, but it's pretty clear to me that a large part of the gap is far from that. "Nerd stereotypes" (mentioned in the article), along with the toxic culture that has emerged as trendy in Silicon Valley (demonstrated by Uber most prominently) has also played a huge part in discouraging women from the field. Women in particular are poorly represented in open source far more than other programming environments, and this is no surprise, because open source culture is *notoriously* shitty. If a mere code of conduct encourages more women developers (as is noted in the Wired article), then such reflects that much of the gap is not innate.
 * The big irony of this "wah everyone's complaining about everyone being equal" is this: toxic culture like the open source community turns off women in part because women and men process and enact aggressive behavior quite differently. So yes, women and men *are* different, and tech bro types don't even fucking get how or why. Men at a biological level will usually have far more upper body strength compared to women, and are far more propensity to physically violent behavior. Hell even as a guy I wouldn't want to enter a community where you might get death threats merely for coding something that Falls Afoul of The Linux Religion, and whose leader occasionally turns potty mouth ranty without realizing that these days overaggression is considered a serious managerial flaw. Soundwave106 (talk) 16:44, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Criticism of diversity quotas exist. At this point, it's best to address that criticism first, point out the problems in the logical fallacies that are being proposed. For instance, this proposed logical fallacy, first, is not even a fallacy. It is an argument against diversity quotas with no logic as far as I know being employed except an assumption that equal proportions of groups between a [assumed] professional job population and total population is inherently "correct". The proposed argument is a strawman of diversity quotas by failing to address the goals of diversity quotas. Proponents of diversity quotas don't want to bolster minorities for being merely a smaller fragment of the population, but address the minorities' having disadvantages including hiring, negotiation, education, income, medical attention, and wages compared to the majority (these can also limit the pool of qualified applicants from minorities). Additionally, the conclusion requires a definition of "discrimination" as there's systemic discrimination and the more active (and illegal) version. 18:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * "Best application would be to develop methods for that remove systematic bias as much as possible, without any numerical forcing. An example here would be blind auditions for orchestras."
 * This is a good answer to the question: "How do we fight unjust discrimination in hiring process?" However, that is not the question of my first post.
 * "Too often the explanation for this from the naive is that women have this innate inability to code."
 * which is exactly what I called "The Representation Fallacy, Predisposition Conclusion."
 * "Women in particular are poorly represented in open source far more than other programming environments, and this is no surprise, because open source culture is *notoriously* shitty. If a mere code of conduct encourages more women developers (as is noted in the Wired article), then such reflects that much of the gap is not innate."
 * Extrapolating from this example, I believe, correct me if I get it wrong, that you are saying: "To find discriminations, instead of comparing the whole population percentage of a category of people with the same percentage in a field, let's compare the percentage in two different instances of the same field, where the difference is a code of conduct or some other independent factor." CaptainMarvel (talk) 09:51, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * "The proposed argument is a strawman of diversity quotas by failing to address the goals of diversity quotas."
 * You are right in saying that portraying any support of diversity quotas as "The Representation Fallacy Premise" is a strawman, and indeed this is not the intention of my post. If one is a proponent of certain quotas because one believes the field representation should naturally reflect the whole population representation, then it is an instance of "The Representation Fallacy Premise." If their motivation is different, then it depends. CaptainMarvel (talk) 10:01, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure "fallacy" is the right word, which might have been what threw people off. Much of this would probably fall under statistical and psychological terms, and they tend to be partial to the phrase "cognitive bias". I see quotas as potentially useful when the benefits of diversity (in many cases both for the one initiating quotas and the minority group affected) outweigh the reverse discriminatory elements that it entails, and where creating a "blind bias" environment is very difficult to do. And yes, without Googling for references (no time), from what I remember, it is much easier to find differences on similar control groups. What certain crowds often fails to realize is there tends to be far more variation within various "human groupings" than there is between "human groupings". Many stereotypes tend to fall apart under the microscope because they are assuming far too much about a diverse group. Soundwave106 (talk) 13:31, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * "I'm not sure "fallacy" is the right word"
 * "Fallacy" simply means "wrong reasoning." If you think that "The Representation Fallacy Premise" should not been called a "fallacy," then you say that it is not a wrong reasoning, that is, we should naturally expect that the representation of a category of people in a certain field reflects the representation of such category among the whole population. CaptainMarvel (talk) 15:40, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * So, given this isn't productive due to vague-ish overly verbose phrasing. State your position plainly and define your terminology. 15:44, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Their posting style reminds me of UT, strange.... — Oxyaena Harass  16:12, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I think I have stated my position quite clearly, writing three believes that I claim are fallacies, and asking a question at the end. Also, I haven't use any technical terminology that should be difficult to understand. Anyway, if something is unclear, you can ask and I can try to explain it better.
 * Unreal Tournament? Good for you. Now maybe try to stay on topic. CaptainMarvel (talk) 16:34, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you stating that minorities are less qualified for certain fields or are you not? Because your posts thus far imply that you think the reason there's less diversity in say... STEM fields is that they are "naturally" less diverse and that attempts to institute affirmative action are wrong and "fallacious." Is this your position, yes or no? 16:40, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * "Are you stating that minorities are less qualified for certain fields or are you not?"
 * I'm not...
 * "Because your posts thus far imply that you think the reason there's less diversity in say... STEM fields is that they are "naturally" less diverse"
 * ...how can my post imply that if I actually wrote that the claim: "If, instead of the percentage P, a smaller (respectively, greater) percentage is found, then it means that the category C has a smaller (respectively, greater) predisposition to field F." is a FALLACY ?
 * "Is this your position, yes or no? "
 * I wrote that such a position is a fallacy, that is, a mistake, a faulty reasoning, a wrong assumption... so NO! CaptainMarvel (talk) 16:58, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * "..how can my post imply that if I actually wrote that the claim: "If, instead of the percentage P, a smaller (respectively, greater) percentage is found, then it means that the category C has a smaller (respectively, greater) predisposition to field F." is a FALLACY ?" See, this is why I meant by "...overly verbose phrasing." and why I requested you "State your position plainly and define your terminology." This isn't a formal debate, and your phrasing loses several readers in the weeds of your prose. 18:30, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * To illustrate my point, here is the syllogism from the no true Scotsman article:
 * P1: All X are Y.
 * P2: Clearly, not all X are Y.
 * C: All true X are Y.
 * And here is your syllogism:
 * Representation Fallacy, Premise: The believe that if a category C of people constitute a percentage P of the whole population then, naturally, in any field F of human activities, we should expect to find a percentage P of people belonging to the category C.


 * Representation Fallacy, Discrimination Conclusion: If, instead of the percentage P, a smaller (respectively, greater) percentage is found, then it means that field F is unjustly discriminating against (respectively, in favor of) the category C.


 * Representation Fallacy, Predisposition Conclusion: If, instead of the percentage P, a smaller (respectively, greater) percentage is found, then it means that the category C has a smaller (respectively, greater) predisposition to field F.
 * You see the difference? 21:16, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * If you prefer the format of the no true Scotsman fallacy's article, I can easily reformulate my post in such way. Here the "Representation Fallacy Premise" written in such format:
 * P1: Category C of people constitute a percentage P of the whole population.
 * C: Category C of people should constitute a percentage P of any field of human activities.
 * The "Representation Fallacy, Discriminatory Conclusion" and the "Representation Fallacy, Predisposition Conclusion" can be written in a similar way to. Are you more comfortable with such a formulation? CaptainMarvel (talk) 08:04, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It's better. 13:04, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Simplistic views
Although they are technically fallacies, I think that it would be better to call these assumption about group representation as "simplistic views." Is every discrepancy between the representation of a group in the entire population and its representation in a certain field completely due to discriminations? Of course not, but some may. Is every discrepancy between the representation of a group in the entire population and its representation in a certain field completely due to predispositions? Of course not, but some may. Maybe a possible answer could be starting to consider more the individuals per se instead of belonging to one or another group. Melody (talk) 12:28, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Michael Bloomburg 2020?
Why the fuck is Michael Bloomberg trying to enter the 2020 Democratic Party presidential nomination now? For fuck sake.--NavigatorBR(Talk) - 23:19, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Because he's a establishment capitalist who sees the rise of Leftism as a threat? Also he's dumb. 23:50, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Because Dunning-Kruger? Because not enough candidates would be likely to get dementia if elected? Bloomberg is 77 and would be 79 shortly after inauguration. The percentage of highly-educated people who have dementia in that age bracket (75-84) is 10% (college education appears to some protection against dementia). The percentage rises sharply to 30% after age 85. Those candidates who would be 85+ after an 8-year term include: Bloomberg, Biden, and Sanders. Other risk factors would increase the likelihood of dementia onset (genetics: possibly Trump; heart attack: Sanders). As far as I'm concerned, these named candidates are in it for the ego, not for the good of the country for this reason alone. Bongolian (talk) 02:23, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * To be clear, are you saying that you think Sanders is running because of his ego? 02:31, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, why does that surprise? He could have sensibly dropped out after the heart attack: he'll be 79 on January 15, 2021. We already had a confirmed president with dementia: it is not a good thing. Bongolian (talk) 03:53, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Who would you say is the best candidate then? And why? 04:30, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I would further eliminate all candidates who have never held office or never won a statewide-race in a major state: Bullock, Buttigieg, Castro, Delaney, Gabbard, Williamson, and Yang. They're really in over their heads. That leaves Booker, Harris, Klobuchar, and Warren as reasonable contenders. Warren has shown to be easily suckered by Trump, so I would not want to see her win the primary because I think she could be easily beaten by Trump by being bullied. The remaining three are reasonable contenders, but I would say that Harris is the best choice based on: 1) having won statewide races three times (Attorney General twice and Senator once), showing that she is an experienced campaigner and 2) She has shown herself to be tough in confronting Trump's nominees in the Senate, and would likely not be easily out-manouvered by Trump in debates. Bongolian (talk) 07:39, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, regarding the geriatric candidates, I fear that they'll have the "I'll be dead by then." mindset regarding climate change, and they won't be motivated to do enough about it. Bongolian (talk) 07:41, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * But Harris isn't really high in the voting polls. Sidenote, who's Tom Steyer? He's not even mentioned on our page. Tinribmancer (talk) 12:38, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That's dumb, bongolian, every goddamn word you've said. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:25, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * There are now two billionaires running for President as Dems. Tells you all you need to know about the corrupting nature of money.RipCityLiberal (talk) 18:40, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, I can't say that it tells me that all by itself. But it doesn't take terribly much context to decide that you're right.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:45, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Bloomberg enters for three reasons (1) Biden corruption scandal, (2) Warren's anti-Wall Street wealth tax, (3) Beto's anti-gun position. nobsEpstein didn't kill himself'' 15:17, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Has anyone seen Parasite yet?
By damn, there is too much movie in this movie. I've never heard an audience choke on their laughs with a gasp before. Dark slapstick, I've never seen it done exactly right until now. I can't tell if there's anything deeper than cinematography here because it's so thick. I think it was a fantastic movie. I can't read the story, I have a theory that is otherwise full-on spoiler that none of my friends can discount, but also the whole point is subverting narrative and plan, so even if I take that into account, boo me, I'm playing into the exact hand it's trying to call out? It's a work, and it's art. And it's a piece of hard/masterful work, and it's so all over the place, but there are spots that stick out a little bit more than others and are used as tropes and then not as a trope once that I don't think are noticed. It's fucking beautiful and engaging and entertaining, I 100% loved it, but there is too much movie in this movie, and trying to talk about it is necessarily desperate.Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:52, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I will be seeing it pretty soon. I've only been hearing good things about it.Crazymantis91 (talk) 23:41, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Is Suffering Real?
https://www.speakingtree.in/allslides/is-suffering-real/31716

It reminds me of a saying about how pain is inevitable but suffering is optional. The physical sensation of pain sure, but I don't know if suffering isn't real. The claim is that it is created in our minds by the situation at hand,but does that make it unreal?Machina (talk) 17:58, 8 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes. Suffering is real. I know, I experience it every day. 18:12, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * This seems like a bullshit excuse to tell people who actually suffering. — Oxyaena Harass  18:13, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm suffering from seeing Buddhist propaganda in the Saloon all the time. Bongolian (talk) 18:22, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Correct. Machina, it's gone from JAQing off to full on annoyance.  Find another way to express yourself.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:40, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I checked Machina's talk page. They may be making posts like these because they are still depressed. A lot of these posts sound like they're having an existential crisis. 01:47, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Suffering is indeed real. Or at least as real as any other emotion and state can be as an entirely internal construction. Either way I agree with Bongolian, please learn how to express this weird Buddhist propaganda in another way lmao. ⏣sapient_cogbag⏣ talk  21:44, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Machina these are all interesting questions on their own. For example your question on the "realness" of emotions and subjective experiences is dealt with in philosophy (quite extensively). Just take the debate over the definition of "qualia" and how meaningful/dubious it is. These are interesting and useful discussions. However the links you give and the way your questions are framed via Bhuddist "thought" aren't. They take on pretty unsophisticated hyperwesternized "bhuddist" undertones (propaganda) or are framed to encourage embracing a larger world view through the context of a seemingly interesting question. If you are interested in discussing questions like: objective reality, spacial existence, inherant morality, the realness of feelings then go ahead and ask them (sometimes a more detailed question or real life examples help a lot). But the links to bad Bhuddist philosophy and propaganda doesn't help at all. I think we all become a little less intelegent after reading most of it. Shabi  DOO  03:39, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

I don’t know how else to phrase it. The way they make it seem it looks as though suffering isn’t real and just something that we create by “rejecting reality”. They say it with such certainty and the way their mental state is seems to lead me to believe they are right. That if I argue that it’s real it means I’m deluded and choosing pain rather than peace and truth.Machina (talk) 06:24, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Sounds little more than an argument by assertion. It's one of Christianity's greatest weapons (or at least the most used). Is the Christian bible true because people believe it's true and it says it's true? TheTallMass (talk) 06:29, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * If you want to believe that Buddhism is true, fine. If you want to believe that the world in which we live and everything in it are just illusions, fine. If you want to believe that your body does not really exist, fine. If you want to believe that all of your feelings and emotions aren't real, fine. As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't make any difference if our reality is real or not. It's the only reality we've got We can't escape it. We have to live with it. For all intents and purposes, I live in a real physical world. I can feel physical and emotional pain. My body, as well as my emotions, allow me to experience a lot of pleasure too. I perceive this world as real. I perceive myself and everything about me as real. And if I'm wrong, I really couldn't give a shit, just like I could give a shit about whether the God of Abraham exists or not. Now will you please stop spamming all this fucking bollocks about your fucking religion in the Saloon Bar all the time. I'm absolutely fucking sick of it. Spud (talk) 08:20, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It's getting about as annoying as constantly seeing links to "Is Jesus Christ your saviour?" Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:55, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Set up a debate page and move them all there, perhaps. Avida Dollarsher again 19:37, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

It's not that I believe this or want to believe it, but I have nothing to argue against it and I can't deny the results from those who preach it.Machina (talk) 03:29, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Sometimes you have to let that failure work for itself. You can't beat every preacher if you're honest with yourself.  I guess that's preachy, but I mean let some battles go. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:45, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

How much of the overpopulation argument is a racist dog-whistle?
It seems like you can't read any comments section to a climate-related article in a major news site without seeing someone smugly bring up how no one is talking about population reduction as a solution. They often frame it as some utilitarian dilemma, but considering that birth rates are below replacement level in industralized nations, people are in fact regularly talking about expanding birth control and family planning to the countries that do have a substantial growth rate, and that Americans for instance have a much larger carbon footprint than the rest of the world, I can't help but suspect it's yet another attempt to deflect blame away from Western society to poorer nations while fantasizing about eugenics. Colossal Squid (talk) 04:40, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * In another thread of the saloon bar, about a completely unrelated subject, I pointed out that unfalsifiable hypotheses are of no help in understanding the world and should be discarded. My impression every time somebody talks about "dog-whistles" is exactly that of an unfalsifiable hypothesis. Yes, it is possible that some of the people that, when it comes to climate change, start talking about population reduction, are motivated by racist beliefs... but how could we prove that? I say we can't, unless we invent some mind-reading machine.
 * Therefore, instead of losing time with unfalsiable "dog-whistle" accusations, why not thinking about the actual situation of climate change and demography?
 * For what I see, there's surely a problem: On one side, it would be a good thing if developing countries reach the standard of living of USA or Europe; but, on the other side, if they do so by keeping their current population grown rate, it would be a disaster for the climate.
 * Now, how useful it is if, instead of checking the data and thinking about a possible solution, I got immediately accused of racist dog-whistleling? Melody (talk) 12:15, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * We identify dog whistle politics through context reading and experience. For instance, "urban" sounds innocuous to someone not familiar with US racial demographics, but given that minorities tend to live in US cities, derogatory uses of "urbans" are usually aimed at black people. In the case of population reduction, pretty much everyone involved in climate action agrees that we need to reverse population growth, and the solution already exists. Expanded women's education and birth control has already slashed the birth rate in industrialized nations (millennial women are even rebelling against the entire concept of needing kids to be fulfilled). This isn't a new or revolutionary concept, even if it scares the heck out of boomers and capitalism because it means fewer people to prop up the pyramid scheme.
 * The issue isn't bringing up overpopulation itself. It's the context in which they do it. Ever since Thomas Malthus, "population reduction" has been a euphemism for eugenics, and often, commenters spam climate discussions on unrelated topics with "Why is no one talking about overpopulation?" in a way that implies the euphemistic meaning. There have already been mass shooters that have invoked population as a justification for ecofascism, and it's a worrying trend. It's similar to how we condemn PewDiePie for making Nazi jokes because he did so in the context of rising far-right racist rhetoric. Colossal Squid (talk) 17:26, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a long non-answer to my question. Melody (talk) 18:25, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That's because you were asking a loaded question. I've pointed out the commonly accepted overpopulation solution already. Have you come up with a better one? Colossal Squid (talk) 18:46, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Saying "Expanded women's education and birth control" is not a solution, because the way to achieve those goals are everything but clear and easy. Government and humanitarian organizations are working on it from decades and the problem is still unsolved (although much progress has been done). Now I'm not asking you to give me all the details of a solution, because that's impossible; My exact point is that there's need of talking about the problem of overpopulation, since it's not solved, and unfalsifiable accusations of dog-whistleling are not helpful. Melody (talk) 19:37, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Any talk about overpopulation is a dog whistle considering it is always convenient that the only restrictions are put on poor and black people.RipCityLiberal (talk) 04:45, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Melody (talk) 09:24, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You may be right. But as melody suggests, how is it helpful to talk about dog-whistles when there is only guess-work (perhaps educated) about this connection? It sounds like a conspiracy theory.Ariel31459 (talk) 14:13, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Some! The people making the claim almost never stop to say "Hey you know, the places where individuals do the most environmental destruction and use the most resources per capita should be first in line for population reduction."  Kind of a red flag there.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:06, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to this? nobsEpstein didn't kill himself'' 15:59, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I wonder if eugenics advocates are the only ones interested in population control. As Melody implied, a little mass starvation changed the POV of many in China.Ariel31459 (talk) 16:11, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * "Hey you know, the places where individuals do the most environmental destruction and use the most resources per capita should be first in line for population reduction."
 * Isn't already so? I'm reading here. I think that more than this would mean that Europe and USA should kill their elderly or having even fewer babies. The former is obviously crazy while the latter would lead to having too much elderly compared to the young people, which is something unsubstainable in the long run. Melody (talk) 20:36, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The one-child policy, which was pushed on the CCP, forced on mostly poor people. Overpopulation is not a problem, mismanagement of resources is.RipCityLiberal (talk) 20:59, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * @RipCityLiberal I think this is a good point. Because we know that there is a quality of life where people essentially cap out their population, we need only look at what solutions are needed to bring everyone to that quality of life; we need not look at how to reduce the number of people attaining that quality of life because it is something which naturally peaks anyways.  We need to stop thinking about farms in the sense of fields, and more in the sense of multi-story green houses.  There are several promising leads for dealing with the energy crisis, such as fusion power, that are making great strides.  When we have actually exhausted our possibilities for advancement, only then should we talk about draconian measures.  MirrorIrorriM (talk) 19:09, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Humans have continued to astound with advances in agriculture, science and design. The only population issues we need to be concerned about is increasing immigration to balance falling birth rates. And that isn't just a US/Europe thing, that is every developed nation, needs to take in more immigrants.RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:07, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Need Help
Ok, so, this is gonna seem a bit awkward, but I need to ask of sort of a favor here. So, about a month ago, I uploaded a video to my YouTube channel refuting Zachary K. Hubbard's gematria conspiracy bullshit (https://youtu.be/Gmy1Hqpt_Fc). I covered just about all the basics in the video, basically the same ones that the Rationalwiki article covers (yes I wrote that as well, just for anyone who wasn't aware).

Well, one of Hubbard's supporters just commented on the video: he's challenging me to actually debate Hubbard on his weekly live-stream. Basically Hubbard holds a weekly night stream where people call in and share "testimonies" and shit. (UPDATE: as I was typing this out, he literally just left a second comment, basically saying the exact same thing as the first: he's pretty much spamming my video at this point).

Part of me wants to debate, especially since NOT debating might make me look like I'm chickening out or something. You see, I have to be honest with you guys for a moment, I am SHIT at debating: I don't have great debating skills. Doesn't mean I afraid of being wrong, I'm quite confident in what I believe in, but my debating skills really aren't the best TBH. Heck I'm not even sure I could win a flat Earth debate, to be REALLY honest. That's just how my skills are. But that's ok, I'm not afraid to admit that. I'm also not afraid to call Zach out on his bullshit: if I were, I would have NEVER posted that video in the first place.

So anyway, what should I do? Should I actually dignify this guy with a debate? And if so, I'm gonna need all the support I can get. Thanks to everyone. Aaronmichael5 5:59, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Debates, especially online, are as authentic as pro wrestling. If a pundit demands you to debate, they've already setting you up to fail by making sure that anything you say or do can and will be used against you, because a pundit's fan community only cares about seeing him get sick burns on some hapless challenger. There is absolutely no shame in refusing to play the carnival barker's crooked game, and it doesn't make you a chicken.
 * However, if you insist on playing anyway, make sure you've built up a solid counterargument foundation beforehand and focus on his logical inconsistency and factual inaccuracies. Many people make the mistake of trying to argue on an ethical basis, and such arguments are easily shredded because your opponent simply doesn't care about your ethical code. I admit, this is vague advice, but I'm not particularly good at combative debate either. Colossal Squid (talk) 06:23, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, I think you gave me some great advice, thank you. I have replied to this user that I have already argued with some of Hubbard's supporters...to no avail of course. Hopefully he gets it, but for some reason I doubt it. But anyway you're spot on about debates actually, they NEVER decide truth anyway. I've seen christians win debates over athiests, I've also seen atheists win debates over christians: obviously then not all debates can decide truth because they give contradicting outcomes. Aaronmichael5 6:25, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * If you are going to have a debate you need to understand the format.
 * Will there be a moderator for example or will it just be the two of you? Audio or text? A topic? One thing to be aware of is the gish gallop. In ten seconds some woo follower can say ten different wrong things. That leaves you with a dilemma.  You can't answer all ten as each one will take at least ten minutes. But if you don't mention them then they are accepted by default. Which is why one specific topic would be a better idea than "everything he says is wrong".Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 13:32, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * There's never a moderator, it's literally just a call-in that he hosts every Wednesday. The more I think about it, the more I am thinking I shouldn't even waste my time. I just got done having a conversation with this guy on my YouTube channel and he keeps repeating himself like a broken record. "Watch Hubbard's 3000+ videos and you will get it. No coincidence these said numbers match up". On and on and ON. Think I'm starting to get now why conspiracy theories thrive like they do, YOU CAN'T DEBUNK THEM. No matter what you say, no matter how logical it is, they will never believe you. Aaronmichael5 13:56, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That leaves his as both part of the debate and controller of the debate. He can declare victory and conclude whenever he likes.  I wouldn't touch it.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:30, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Think you're right Bob. Could someone do me a favor and read the comments on this video (https://youtu.be/Gmy1Hqpt_Fc)? Someone tell me, am I just completely and totally going insane, or am I dealing with someone relentlessly slashing out the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy? Sure is what it looks like to me. Aaronmichael5 14:37, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The Hubbard supporter probably sees the debate as a way of getting money out of it. That alone makes it unfair. If one is to agree to a debate, then one should also agree to the terms, such as: 1) A moderator who is truly neutral 2) Explicit rules for the debate and 3) if money is to be made, either implicitly or explicitly, terms of payment. The supporter is not likely to agree to any of this because it reduces the lucrativeness of the 'debate' that the supporter expects to win by setting his/her own terms. Bongolian (talk) 19:18, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * @Bongolian The debate (which I have pretty much decided not to waste my time participating in btw) wouldn't have been against the supporter, it would have been against Hubbard himself, but your point still stands. Instead of actually refuting my arguments, they demand I go to his call-in: seems like they're more interested in giving their almighty savior of the internet world publicity, glory, and and attention than actually engaging in any actual arguments. Hmm, I wonder where we've seen that one before. Aaronmichael5 4:34, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * He’s planning a rant video where I’m sure he’ll claim victory that you (and me) won’t join his “debate”.Antigem (talk)

You know my name
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUXjWeWuVSk — Oxyaena Harass  12:48, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I saw the heading and I thought it was some dickhead gloating about what a great troll he was. I'm thankful for the small mercy that it isn't. Spud (talk) 13:27, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You know my name, . — Oxyaena Harass  15:01, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * So then I had to play the video the video to see if it had anything to do with trolls. Doesn't seem to. It's the theme to the 2006 Casino Royale. You know, one of my favourite ever YouTube videos was the opening credits to the 2006 Casino Royale but with the Herb Alpert and the Tijuana Brass theme to the 1967 Casino Royale. The images and the music went incredibly well together. And I'm still disappointed that they didn't have a brief snippet of the 1967 theme in the 2006 Casino Royale, like they had the old Spider-Man cartoon theme n the movies in the 2000s. It could have been playing in the background when Bond checked into the hotel. Spud (talk) 16:27, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * look up the number... Avida Dollarsher again 19:42, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Is it 666? Spud (talk) 06:33, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Is #MeToo a codeword for feminism?
For a while now, I've noticed that a lot of news articles have been using the term #Metoo as a codeword for feminism. For example, let's look at this article:

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-50342714

This article is basically describing sexist dress codes, but then says the backlash against the female glasses ban is echoing the #MeToo movement. It's almost as if the article is too afraid to mention that feminists for years have been shedding light on this issue. However, instead the term #MeToo is used. I can only assume it's because a large sum of people think that feminists are women on their periods who hate men. But in reality, the MeToo movement addresses the same issues women have for years, and only now are people actually listening. 02:14, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That's disappointing if people are either too short-sighted or too timid to characterize feminism as feminism. It really should be known that MeToo is only a subset within feminism and feminism despite all its in-fighting is a net good good for the world. This sort of timidity allows the anti-feminists to control the language and appropriate "feminism" into more negative terms which they already do (similar to how atheism and liberalism have been twisted and reappropriated bu conservatives to the detriment of these two groups and good faith discussion). I hate that, we really need to fight back against this rather than let antifeminists and conservatives step all over us. 03:06, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * MeToo currently redirects to feminism, perhaps it would be a good idea to have at least a short section on it in the feminism page. Bongolian (talk) 04:48, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Remember, people who write news articles are not semanticists. You could say that #MeToo is a media incarnation of feminism. The idea of code-words is really more appropriate for conspiracy theories. I would call it a synonym. More precisely, as Mario suggests, a synecdoche.Ariel31459 (talk) 14:43, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Memes and other various cultural shorthands happen. In this case #MeToo is appropriately mentioned because it inspired a meme against mandatory high heels in dress codes ("Kutoo"), which is similar to the "thou-shalt-not-wear-eyeglasses-because-I-don't-know-some-fucking-stupid-sexist-stereotype-bullshit" deal explored in the article. I look forward to the Japanese labour minister declaring eyeglasses an occupational hazard, similar to how he described high heels as "occupationally necessary and appropriate." Soundwave106 (talk) 15:47, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Possibly making sense of the Atheism = religion debate
Congratulations, you guys finally get to hear me discuss something other than Zach Hubbard for once.

So, I've been thinking about this topic a lot lately because, to nobody's surprise, this topic of debate erupts frequently on the internet and shows no signs of slowing down. So I thought I'd give it a crack here. For the record, I'm not gonna try and take sides necessarily, this is just my honest analysis. Anyway here's my two cents: [CLEARS THROAT].

Deeply religious leaders like Ken Ham frequently proclaim how atheism is just a religion, thus atheists are no different than the religious people they criticize. The atheist of course counters by arguing that they don't have any religious holidays, rituals, holy book, etc: thus they're not religious at all.

Now this doesn't mean they're correct, but I think I understand why religious people like Ham call atheism a religion. You see, I've come to observe that many people of the general public, at least in my life experience, end up taking the Carl Sagan definition of atheism: the most literal one there is. As most of you might know, Sagan saw atheism as someone who was CERTAIN God was not real. But since Sagan could not prove God doesn't exist, he chose not to call himself atheist, preferring to be called agnostic (the late professional film critic Roger Ebert held a very similar view, he said he could not believe in God, but like Sagan wouldn't call himself atheist because he thought that was knowing the unknowable). I think that's what throws a lot of people, when atheists say that all it is is just "a lack of belief in God", it's like their brain registers that as agnosticism, rather than atheism. So I'd bet money on this: while people like Ham think Atheism is a religion, they probably do NOT think agnosticism is a religion, unless of course Ham has also called agnosticism a religion and I am not aware of it. Also if you examine most religious polls done in each city/country, there's always the "irreligious" category, which includes, but is not limited to, atheism. It also includes agnostic, people who don't know for sure where they stand, and sometimes even deists: this is because many see belief in God as not necessarily religious if they're not trying to force anyone (themselves included) to live a certain way because of it. Kind of like someone who believes in life beyond Earth somewhere out there in this HUGE universe, but rejects all that top secret/government/area 51/conspiracy/UFO/corn field circling/cow kidnapping/gray alien/anal probin' bullshit.

In the end, I think it's a very grid-locked debate. I see some good points made by both sides, and of course because its so grid-locked, we may genuinely never see an end to this great debate. It will likely continue for as long as the internet itself is around. Aaronmichael5 5:09, 10 November 2019 (UTC)


 * It does not help that some in one of the sides not only claim it's a religion but also that it's the worst of them as it offers no hope. Panzerfaust (talk) 22:30, 10 November 2019 (UTC)


 * there is no debate. there never has been a debate. don't legitimise bullshit assertions made by dreadful people just so they can delegitimise any criticism of their own beliefs. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:57, 10 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Religion is probably defined best in an anthropological sense. Religion is an easily recognized syndrome of human activities under which people organize their lives around shared rituals and observances that fulfil the social functions we identify with religion.  This sounds circular, until you realize that most human minds contain basically similar instincts, drives, and modules that lead their behavior down well travelled paths and patterns.  This is why, despite the official atheism of State Communism, it started acting like a religion: it sprouted festivals, cult images, eschatology, even the incorrupt corpse of Lenin.  Saying that there is no God does not make those patterns go away.  Now one religion or another may emphasize different things or lack some features: some Muslims and Protestants don't make cult images; State Communism lacks a God, while some versions of Buddhism simply accept the local deities or say nothing about a deity, etc.  So long as they're fulfilling the social functions of religion, they are religion.  The question is whether atheism fulfils those functions, and I don't think it does, at least not yet.  This is also why the Roman Catholic claim that the saints they worship are not deities falls flat.  If people are carrying around a cult image of some being that is claimed to hear and answer prayers, that's a god. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 03:25, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * To thumbnail it, you're saying a religion is defined by a pattern of behavior based on a pattern of beliefs? In this sense, a bank robber is exercising their religion by robbing a bank and going on a months long celebratory meth binge. nobsEpstein didn't kill himself'' 15:06, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * No, because bank robbery usually does not "fulfil the social functions we identify with religion". Though if the USA had a patron saint, it ought to be Willie Sutton. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 19:23, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Or General Forrest. — Oxyaena Harass  19:36, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

You have framed it incorrectly. It's not atheism vs religion. It's atheism vs theism. Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 10:14, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I have my problems with organized religion separate and distinct from my problems with theistic worldviews. The former are generally the more serious concerns, and the latter are the more fundamental and philosophically incompatible.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:56, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I can understand that. But my point is that atheism per se is not a comment on religion. Evidently, if a god is included in  any religion then atheism would be in conflict with that religion. But it's the god claims that atheism would object to. Obviously I agree that many atheists would object to many religions as well, but that - as you imply - would be a separate issue.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 19:03, 12 November 2019 (UTC)


 * It could be said that atheism is just a term cooked up by religionists for people who criticize their religion on the main issue. If nobody claimed there were such things as gods, nobody would have the occasion to deny their existence. One could describe atheism as a criticism of theism, e.g.: after the evangelist goes to the trouble of describing the entirety of Christian dogma to a crowd of skeptics, he could well expect the skeptical reply, "I understand that this is all very nice and quite attractive, but where on earth did you get this idea about the thing you call god? You can't be serious." The very question "is atheism a religion?," is a theological one, and quite passive aggressive. I don't know why atheists should have to, put up with it.Ariel31459 (talk) 03:11, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, that's the rub. I mean, if I said I didn't like your favorite painter and followed that with don't talk to me about oil paints because your taste is trash, that would be hurtfully dismissive.  I think that's what proselytizers feel before they ever think about challenging atheism, and it's probably well confirmed by the people who want to shout back at them.  Like, yes, I am an atheist, and there is no functional percentage of a chance within my opinion that a god exists.  But I don't expect everybody to reach that conclusion.  I have a personal rule for any time I deal with a new idea.  The loudest people are the worst ambassadors.  That doesn't mean the idea is bad, I've seen one of my friends flub a watchmaker response.  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:47, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I am an atheist, But I think that as a philosophical position it's pretty irrelevant. I also don't believe in the lock ness monster or homeopathy - but neither of these lacks of belief necessitate that Í adopt a special name for not believing in said nonsense.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:48, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately philosophy departments (many) and many forums are filled with discussions about theology and God and the divine and attached bullshit. So unless you are discussing philosophy with like minded rationalists/humanists/atheists it is a philosophical discussion that often need be had. For example the rejection of the supernatural and fantastical explanations for things (without evidence) is a pretty important position per philosophy...which automatically includes the rejection of God AND the Loch Ness monster. I think the God shit is relevant cause billions of otherwise intelligent people insist that this God is behind everything, morality, being, knowledge, experience, consciousness and so on. Which are all pretty essential topics to philosophy. It's like arguing with an anti-vaxer. They are everywhere and they never shut up and people listen to them and some take their arguments seriously. So it goes for God in philosophy. He pops up and he needs to be taken down again and again...or the toxicity of God talk pollutes the shit out of the rest of the philosophical discussions! It's sort of the duty of a humanist. Shabi  DOO  00:39, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Michael Shellenberger
Been seeing his name a lot, and he comes off as a contrarian proll towards the environmental movement. Very Serious People seem to like him, since he's got the Time Hero of the Environment award in 2008, but he writes for Forbes and Quillette, which should instantly raise red flags. I'd like to start writing an article on the guy (we have a section about him in the Quillette article, but I think there's enough material out there for its own article), but I've had trouble pinning down what precisely his political perspective is (my impression is that he's a techno-fetishist who thinks we can neoliberal our way out of the climate crisis). Anyone know any good articles about him that summarize his position? Colossal Squid (talk) 08:07, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The vibe I'm getting of him so far is one of those that over-fetishize nuclear power. I'm personally not anti-nuclear per se, but pro-nuclear trolls (a fashionable breed among certain circles) tend to undersell nuclear power's current disadvantages. These being essentially large up-front capital costs, tough to dispose of waste, a power source that (currently) largely relies on non-renewable supplies, national security political follies (eg, "what would you say to US neocons about selling this solution to Iran or North Korea?"), and one of the worst of the worst case scenarios when it comes to "oops" scenarios (eg, "Oops! This land is not habitable for 20000 years!"). Some green types do oogie-boogie nuclear power a bit much, so I suppose people like him are a "useful counterbalance". Soundwave106 (talk) 13:42, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Just a body, and nothing more
http://bendedbrains.com/you-are-the-universe-experiencing-itself/#comment-18520

I know I keep posting this stuff, but I promise this isn't what you think. I don't really buy into the idea of a universal consciousness or a global one, and frankly I don't see how other people do. As far as I know, I am a body. I am NOT the universe experiencing itself (which is just anthropomorphizing the universe), though the bit about the experience of a human is interesting food for thought. That what I call "me" is an experience of me, and I guess the idea is that outside of this view there is no "me" since the feeling of me is part of the experience that I have. But something seems off about this to me, since all we have of life is experience and what we get through the senses. Saying you aren't human but just the experience of being human seems stupid to me and doesn't make me the universe any moreso. Couldn't the same be argued about the claims they make, that it's just the experience of being the universe (this makes more sense since the people who usually say this meditate which can cause such a feeling, or take psychedelics which do the same thing). But part of me wonders why they take the results of these practices to mean that we are the universe, because all I can conclude is that doing such things just leads one to believe that. But in the end it boils down to the body and how these things impact our brains, without which there would be no experience they can use to support their claims, and that's really all they have. I guess the more I get to thinking about life and existence the stranger it all seems to me.Machina (talk) 03:37, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, for fuck's sake! I think we need a new template to warn us that there's some vaguely Buddhist-related bollocks ahead. You know what, I don't believe you when you say you don't believe this stuff, you just have no arguments against it. I think you're a Buddhist missionary. And you can stick your fucking religion up you arse! Spud (talk) 06:50, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Machina doesn't strike me as someone here in bad faith btw. — Oxyaena Harass  11:07, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Mechina doesn't seem to be in bad faith, but does seem to be excessively concerned with Buddhism. It has become tiresome. Ariel31459 (talk) 13:43, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I am a tolerant and open minded person, I respect a person's right to follow a religion or lack there of. That being said, seeing nonstop posts about Buddhism gets extremely annoying. I have nothing against religion (I am a person of faith) but if it is something vague being posted nonstop I say- STFU, we are over it. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 03:09, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Like I said I am not a missionary, but without any arguments against what they say how can I just say it isn't true?Machina (talk) 00:05, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * But you can't prove it is true either. Just like you can't prove that God exists or that Jesus turned water into wine or prove that any of the rest of that bollocks is true. Now, please, I'm asking you nicely. Stop posting all this Buddhist stuff here. Whatever your intentions are your just filling up the Saloon Bar with religious spam. Spud (talk) 00:50, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The peace of mind they people who practice it have seems like proof enough.Machina (talk) 00:41, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Then become a fucking Buddhist if that's what you want. Which you obviously do. I don't think anybody here is going to try to persuade you not to. But please stop posting this fucking Buddhist crap to the Saloon Bar. You obviously aren't going to get the answers you're looking for from us and you're only succeeding in pissing us off. Spud (talk)


 * If I argued I had peace of mind, but I am not a Buddhist, and found no solace in Buddhism, what would you ask me? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:51, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I guess my first question would be how? Because from what I read they make it sound like if it wasn't true then doing the opposite of it would work.Machina (talk) 20:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * For the love of God, enough. We don't care. Be a Buddhist but stop flooding the bar with it. There are plenty of online Buddhist groups out there go to a Buddhist page to talk about Buddhism. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:36, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not looking to be one.Machina (talk) 00:36, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Purple
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8mcyw32aHI — Oxyaena Harass  11:05, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

I have an odd political question
Okay, lets say that a group of people take residence in a ghost town and declare it an independent country: how much backlash would a country get (any country) if the main country slaughtered the tiny group of separatists?

Now it is known that in places like Iraq and Syria the Kurdish people get screwed over but nothing actually gets done. Lets say the hypothetical separatist group was in a country like Canada, United States, United Kingdom or France pulled off a slaughter like that? --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:08, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * what actually can be done and what effect will that have is the question you have to ask. theres often not a great deal that can be done to some countries - they already are under sanctions, they are propped up by our rivals etc, -and if there is, vested interests ie oil and arms sales, make so action is limited at best if any at all.
 * with the counties you mention, the us in particularly, what actually can be done? you'd need unanimous condemnation and agreement of action for anything to be effective, with a lot of countries too dependent on them in one way or another for that to happen. at best you'd have little more than token condemnation. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:33, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Generally, they're ignored until they start breaking the laws of the actual country, like Freeman on the land, then they're sent to the hoosegow. If one was stupid enough to try to pull this shit in an authoritarian country, the repercussions would probably be worse, but would just be one of a long list of crimes against humanity. Other countries do not care about kooks: they much prefer dealing with real countries. See how successful these places were. See: libertarian paradise and micronation. Bongolian (talk) 18:37, 11 November 2019 (UTC) International recognition is the one and only thing that matters for whether it is a country. Bongolian (talk) 18:38, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the information. I have an interest in micronations and I just wondered what the end results would be if a slaughter occurred. Now I know. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 20:25, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Some. The media would cover the slaughter and we'd all agree it was bad.  The end.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:08, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Entirely depends on who and when and who's backing them.... . DPR and LPR for example declared themselves independent in 2014.....  Ukraine got upset, Russia said "our dick is bigger than yours so sod off", and upwards of 10,000 Ukrainians have died because of it since....   plus whoever is dead from the other side.  If it wasn't for an idiot president's inability to be subtle who would actually care at the moment? so the answer is - we would only care if we thought we could get something out of caring.  Call me cynical - I won't argue! Aloysius the Gaul 22:51, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It is bad that many people only "care" if it benefits them. I sadly agree. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 03:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't it just be easier to apply to the host state for recognition as a self-governing incorporated entity? Happens all the time, without needless bloodshed. nobsEpstein didn't kill himself'' 03:33, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Black Friday
With Thanksgiving here in the United States just around the corner, let's reflect for a moment on the annual circus known as Black Friday. I say we should do an article on Black Friday actually, because I for one find it to be the most BACKWARDS holiday known to mankind. Mere hours after we sit around at the table, reflecting with our family/friends on what we're thankful for, we find ourselves in a borderline war-zone trampling, shoving, stampeding, tooth and clawing our way to the electronics section at Best Buy just to obtain the hottest new Iphone Ipad Iwhateverthefuckelse for about $100 less than what find for the exact same item at full price. It is without a doubt the most irrational holiday that has ever been invented. Aaronmichael5 00:54, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * "Thanksgiving," what is this witchcraft of which you speak? VerminWiki (talk) 05:29, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, it's not a holiday, exactly. It's not recognized by any government or religion as such, you're not that likely to get the day off to "celebrate" it (especially if you work in retail!) and there isn't any gathering of friends and family-- except possibly as a diversionary force while you target that one pair of shoes.  Black Friday is a purely mercantile event, operated by the commercial sector, and no-one pretends that it's anything else.  It is, in other words a sale like any other-- except, admittedly, in the arena of scale.  Honestly, it may be annoying, but no-one is at all obligated to "participate", and I honestly don't think it missional.  Kencolt (talk) 05:32, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Good news. The next global climate strike is happening on that day, and considering how big the last one was, has a good chance of sabotaging that consumerism fest if we can get Chile-level numbers out there. As an aside, why the heck do people feel like they need to buy a new phone or device every year, even if they ignore the environmental and social costs of mining for the materials needed to produce those things? The one I have is still functional after several years. Similarly, I was surprised to hear that fast fashion was even a thing, because I cannot comprehend not wearing something for less than a year. Colossal Squid (talk) 05:36, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm gonna have to stop you right there. The climate strike won't do anything to Black Friday. The kind of people who participate in Black Friday don't give a crap about the climate or even know anything about it. 16:33, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Suppose so. It was mostly wishful thinking. Colossal Squid (talk) 17:24, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's getting ridiculous. Black friday has spread outside of the US. Since thanksgiving isn't a thing over here, some stores have a "black week" with sales. There is also some weird other black friday days which some places have tried to implement, like "Cyber Monday" and "Green Friday". <font color="Purple">Thea <font color="Blue">ce (talk) 12:18, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * On Thanksgiving people say they are thankful for what they have but then forget it the next day and kill each other for cheap items. Black Friday is like the Purge from the Purge movies. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 13:20, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * And, of course, the "cheap" there is entirely a fiction. If there are more people in your mall this day than any other day of the year, what incentive do you, as a business, have to substantially cut prices?  None.  Your foot traffic is already through the roof, and people are already intent on buying.  Almost all black friday sales are "Buy one Get one on this thing that costs 175% of what it cost last month"  The whole thing is a cultural sham  that does nothing but ruin what should be a relaxing day with family.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:31, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The Friday after Thanksgiving has been for as long as I can remember.  Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 04:43, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

The Purge
is, change my mind. 14:26, 17 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Other than not allowing weapons, basically the same thing. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:59, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Increasing immigration to balance falling birth rates
Humans have continued to astound with advances in agriculture, science and design. The only population issues we need to be concerned about is increasing immigration to balance falling birth rates. And that isn't just a US/Europe thing, that is every developed nation, needs to take in more immigrants. 23:07, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * According to indexmundo, US population is decreasing of about 20% every year. To balance it, it means that next year we should take more that 65 million migrants. According to Homeland security, in 2016 US admitted about 1.2 million migrants. Melody (talk) 16:47, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Not sure how you got -20% from +0.62%. Soundwave106 (talk) 16:51, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You're right, I misread indexmundi: It is 0.81% increase. For some reasons I read 0.81 change, which, thinking about it now, would be a disaster. Fixed that, this means that US population is actually increasing, not decreasing. Melody (talk) 16:55, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Death to borders, freedom of movement is a human right! — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  18:23, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You are saying adding 65 million immigrants like it's a bad thing. It is critical to the industrialized world. What DHS and Trump are doing is incredibly damaging.RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:15, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed - how are you going to keep wages low, conditions crap and maximize shareholder profit at the expense of everyone else unless you can play off workers against immigrants for the lowest possible cost? This is the basis of modern capitalism folks - if you don't agree then obviously you are a stinkin' leftie communist hell bent on the destruction of 'Merka and the free world! Aloysius the Gaul 20:22, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Has anyone here ever actually worked with unskilled immigrants? It's quite an undertaking, and not one to be flippant about; it's not as if we can just invite people here, say "you're on your own", and expect it to work. Certainly it's rewarding to get people on their feet in your community, but it all too often brings with it a lot of moments where you just want to bang your head against a wall. I'm happy for immigration (if not open borders), but make sure you know all of what you're asking for before you get it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (<font face="MS Mincho" color="black">話して下さい ) 02:42, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

When you say that adding millions of migrants to developed countries "is critical to the industrialized world" you should explain why and how. I sincerely don't see what good could come from it, neither for the countries getting the migrants, for the countries from where the migrants come from, nor for the migrants themselves. Tokyo (talk) 08:04, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * With apologies for evoking The Godwin, but ask in the past how that science brain drain from Nazi Germany worked out for them. (Rather well... for other countries. Particularly the US and UK. The US also snagged several artists, among them one of the most important early Hollywood film scorers, due to Nazi tomfoolery.) "Immigrants" are not always cheap agricultural exploitation. A question I've been wondering is how hard Donald Trump's nativism and immigrant protectionism will impact America's standing as the place with the world's best universities. Soundwave106 (talk) 13:49, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Soundwave nails one point that is important, at this point most immigrants are not unskilled. But where the are unskilled is also critical, because capitalism in its current form requires unskilled labor to do remedial tasks, and those jobs are unfilled. Japan is a perfect example of this, their birthrates are below their replacement rate, and as people age out of the workforce, they are becoming more reliant on a smaller amount of employed people. This population demands services that they are unable to get because they lack a workforce to support them. In the US, and honestly much of the industrialized world, home care healthcare workers are immigrants. The work is demanding, with long hours and little pay, but it is necessary for services. In the US, truck drivers feature large portions of drivers from Mexico, India, Pakistan, Russia and the Eastern Bloc. Transportation logistics is critical not only to the number of active supply chains, but also to all the shit we buy on Amazon. Time and time again, evidence shows that immigration is a positive to countries, as immigrants are more economically productive, and also bringing new experiences and cultures has been shown to strengthen communities not weaken them. There are few acceptable arguments for lowering immigration that aren't based on xenophobia, nationalism and a massive misunderstanding of the systems that power humanity.RipCityLiberal (talk) 16:05, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I wish it was such a neat and tidy process to welcome unskilled workers. My limited experience suggests it's typically a net benefit, but it's sure a strain on people in the community for some time. Someone has to do the work of helping people get used to this place, and people's time, patience, and money sure doesn't grow on trees (seriously, try to show an African family of 8 simple things like how to use a debit card, it's a long learning curve), and there are some things that just don't fly here (hitting your kids with a switch is typically frowned upon in New England, for instance). Far from restricted immigration, though, this is more of an argument for getting good systems in place to help people adjust to living here. It can (usually) work, it just needs the right mechanisms in place to make it happen. The Blade of the Northern Lights (<font face="MS Mincho" color="black">話して下さい ) 19:02, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 100% agree, the system currently is starved for including the entire process of integrating immigrants. But just because it costs money and is hard, doesn't mean it isn't necessary.RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:20, 14 November 2019 (UTC)