RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive325

Opinion of Common Land Ownership
From the Economist:

Agree? Disagree?RipCityLiberal (talk) 22:33, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * its paywalled this end. the article cuts off before it explains what it is on about. AMassiveGay (talk) 07:22, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * An un-paywalled version of the article is available on outline.com. Cosmikdebris (talk) 15:13, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * How about we do away with this failing and corrupt system entirely? People over profits. — Oxyaena Harass  15:23, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I am none the wiser. it makes no mention of what this new commons are what these shared public resources might be or how they would work. for the life of me I cannot think what they might be in the uk, where the actual commons have been gone for 200 years. there is not much call for grazing land round these parts. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:46, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The Economist is one of the better mags out there IMHO, but they have Their Bias, of course... this article is funny considering at the magazine complained about certain communal ownership policies of Columbia (Ley 70) a couple weeks earlier. (Props for mentioning it, but I would not consider the Economist position definitive without actually talking to Columbians first.) Soundwave106 (talk) 12:39, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I used to lease at a house that was next door to a community garden. The plot was small, the waiting list was long.  Before we moved in, there was a rain collection system set up.  Nobody in the house was like "that's bullshit, that's our rain."  Similarly, we were an all-hours presence of generally drunk young men that kept vandalism and theft (of tools/vegetables) low (just by existing, and smoking on the front porch or in the backyard, it's not like we were literally chasing people off).  For 4 people, rent was, if I remember right, about $320 a head after utilities and the landlord was very cool about some of us being late with it.  I was pulling up weeds in the backyard one time when my favorite gardener lady told me I should have a garden and then just kinda took over.  She had me dig a plot in my yard, plant tomato seeds, basil, and turn the soil with worm castings, and I was like "Well, OK, but I was just trying to pull up weeds."  She asked if I wanted to come to her other community garden plot a few miles away, I think since she gave me all that shit, and I said "no."  I watered the plants and I tried a little bit of the stuff that grew in my backyard, and she was right, that worm poop really set it off, but I really wasn't trying to have my own garden.  But it's not like I thought the community garden was stupid, it was just 95% rich retired white people with a hobby, and 5% rich young white people with a hobby.  Just across the street was the demographic shift, buffered by an apartment complex of old people in failing health.  And I just thought it was a little much to have 2 plots in the city when the waiting list was so long and expect me to care about the one that wasn't literally next to my house.  I didn't say that.  I also got to hear all sorts of complaints about how the land was being misused from people in the neighborhood bars who thought it should be extra parking or would be a brilliant place for a bar.  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:50, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * My question then is if the land nearest you had been developed, would you have been more interested in contributing to a community garden away from you? In the UK context, this is particularly interesting considering your population is densely populated, and you don't have the millions of acres of government owned land like in the US. There are obviously examples of mismanagement, but the Bureau of Land Management has a generally solid track record with the people it works most closely with. But there is still a constant battle for corporations, hydrocarbon based companies especially, to develop that land, even if it wouldn't be the most efficient use. Additionally, in the US suburbia might be one of the worst ways to effectively manage land, including bullshit about having lawns that need to be kept in a way that is woefully inefficient.RipCityLiberal (talk) 17:48, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I mean, more or less interested, not exactly, but I'll admit I would have had less motivation to contribute and now I have (functionally) zero time to contribute based on where I live and my working hours. Definitely not less inclined to support, at least in rhetoric.  I put some serious time and effort into driving for hours volunteering with landowners to the rural spots in my state when the Keystone debate was hot, I've got receipts that I obviously won't share here.  And this city doesn't exactly work in a metro vs suburbia metric, it's at once very spread out and extremely consolidated, diverse but segregated into pockets.  There are 7 originally suburban cities on a quick count that have been annexed over, I don't know, close to a century, and generally those annexations are all built like suburbs, just the old ones keep their old layout and the main streets see some business development.  So the yard that went around the house to the alley and the sidewalk is very different from the yard my parents own.  It's originally a railroad town, and it definitely held tight to that after the interstate was built.  I'd say annexing and hoping main-street businesses will keep the tax/investment ratio flush is starting to not work anymore.  When you get closer to downtown, it's less like outskirts and more like generational holdouts.  I certainly wouldn't have been able to lease a spot there if it was more developed, but at some of the cheapest rent in town I was also less than a block away from some of the most niche/highest trafficked restaurants and shops in the city.  So that's tricky to respond to, because I don't do city council.  But the annexations make a little bit of sense because the people from the annexes do plenty of their spending in the downtown and the closely outlying areas, and gentrification has a big buffer because of that expansion.  But I'm pretty sure the city has hit the county lines in order to do that.  The suburbs that have been annexed need the same trash removal and road maintenance as anyone else.  Those are city deals.  And the petro company that pushed the Keystone through the state threatened Eminent Domain law (falsely, but almost successfully), which is a legal premise that common use for a common benefit precludes individual ownership of land.  I mean, it's all fucking insanely complicated.   Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Once upon a time, a guy called Boris Johnson decided to go to the market in Doncaster...
and then this happened (don't worry about the language, just click on the video).

That woman is definitely not Pro-brexit. The others that say "it's gonna be alright", with that elderly woman smiling and doing a "thumbs up" on the other hand...

Oh, and some media sources over here said that there's already tension between UK citizens, thanks to brexit. Is this true? Tinribmancer (talk) 16:44, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I dunno about tension between UK citizens. I mean, Scotland is fairly angry, and independence referendum 2 is almost inevitable. And there's likely a majority in Northern Ireland for reunification. Both (partly) due to Brexit. And in England, remainers are somewhat still angry over the Brexiters extremely dirty campaign, prorogation of parliament, Johnson's claim he'll ignore UK law to get Brexit done, and...
 * I mean, yeah, the situation is somewhat tense, though admittedly, moreso online (to say the least) than IRL. But somewhat tense. Johnson's as good a unifier of a country as Trump. Dendlai (talk) 18:14, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Glorious
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pArZN0FtG8U — Oxyaena Harass  20:12, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Which reminds me, how was the "Truth" movement this year? Tinribmancer (talk) 22:16, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I have to give credit to the Mayor here. No stopping, not even faltering at that moment-- just keep on speaking.  No matter what else, that's style. Kencolt (talk) 04:35, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

The world is ending, no really
[1 ] [2 ] [3 ] [4 ] [5 ] [6 ]

Over the years I've lost faith in reform and become a lot more hopeless because of what is happening. People everywhere are starving and dying, yet I am supposed to believe the mantra that the world is getting better because "freedom" and "democracy". Corperations won't stop dumping trash into our oceans, there is enough to build Manhattan for crying out loud and it's continuing. Reform won't stop deforestation, we need a dictator to make them stop. If this problem continues to worsen somebody will need to force the ones causing it to stop with violence if necessary. Besides, if it came between a few oligarch and the billions of other lives at risk I think we all know what choice we'd make, in a heart beat.

You cannot solve this with individial actions, compared to the rest of the world they ammount to nothing. And given how slow decision making is in Democracy, nobody can count on that either. Gewgtweg brought this up a year back and I pretty much laughed him off, now I find myself drifting away from my old views as it affects me personally.

We need a meritocracy (it's obvious what merit would mean in our case) where the individual most equipped to oversee the handling of the crisis, and is concerned about it, is given complete control of industry and corperations. ཨོཾ་མ་ཎི་པདྨེ་ཧཱུྃ (talk) 03:01, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Or, you know, we could do socialism and abolish corporations entirely. — Oxyaena Harass  08:40, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oxyaena corperations are not abolished under Socialism, the way they are run is just different. In Socialism democracy would be extended to the work place which means slower decisions. Corporations would be public property. I confess that for a few months I have been a Socialist, but I no longer see how that will help us. And I'm wary of the entire movement as far as its adherents are concerned. ཨོཾ་མ་ཎི་པདྨེ་ཧཱུྃ (talk) 16:26, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That's state capitalism, not socialism. — Oxyaena Harass  21:10, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no difference, state capitalism is just a term thrown around by anti-communists. The abolition of private property means that the property will be public, and decisions made in regards to its functioning will be made democratically. You can call it state capitalist or socialist, it's still Marxist either way. ཨོཾ་མ་ཎི་པདྨེ་ཧཱུྃ (talk) 21:43, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, experience has taught us that totalitarian governments are excellent at solving problems. 23:48, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Ironically although you were probably being sarcastic you're right, and even limiting our scope to modern totalitarianism like Stalin and Mao demonstrates this. Mao for example, while a despot and barbaric, was able to take China out of the middle ages and set the groundwork for it to become an industrial superpower. Totalitarian governments solve problems, but the means by which they do so is often violent. For more benevolent approaches to problems you have to look no further than autocrats like Emperor Renzong of Song. Either way we're heading for Mad Max pretty soon, how could totalitarianism be worse than all out anarchy? ཨོཾ་མ་ཎི་པདྨེ་ཧཱུྃ (talk) 00:15, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The South Koreans did what Mao did, only quite peacefully, curbing only some rights for relatively short period of time and with democratic principles (which were rather flakey at times) and it led to a fully developed country with full democracy, a roaring economy and the same rights you'd have in the U.S. or Germany. They did it a whole lot better than Mao and all under far far far worse starting conditions...after a brutal war. It's true that Lennin and Mao brought some stability and industrialism to China and Russia but it didn't have to be done that way and the death tolls and cost of human freedom that still hurt Russia and China to this day, could have been avoided. Shabi  DOO  00:42, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * @Shabidoo the South Koreans were just as bad as Mao (Bodo League massacre), Mao was only worse in the quanity of violence. The South Korean government killed over 200,000 people. ཨོཾ་མ་ཎི་པདྨེ་ཧཱུྃ (talk) 01:24, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I’m gonna give what I hope can be my last statement on the matter. If you honestly think that climate change is gonna result in “Mad Max” then I suggest you take some time away from the internet and stop watching so many action movies. If you think that granting absolute power to people who think they’re better and more worthy of it than the rest of us would result in anything but disaster, then I don’t even know what to say to you. And the fact that having someone advocate for mass murder and Stalinism prompted disagreement from only two people is making me wonder if I should reevaluate whether I should be involved in this community. Take a trip to the Aral Sea if you fucks think communism is so awesome for the environment. 04:32, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It is a fact that certain people are better than other people at different things. I assume you are not a politician or a CEO of a corporation, so it's safe to say that neither you nor I are worthy of suddenly being given complete control over these things. We lack experience.
 * And I'm not advocating mass murder, CEO's who refuse to comply and cease harming the enviroment, indigenous people (people in general), don't have to die. If they tried to bring Fascism however to protect private property (even at great costs), it would be moral to stop them by force.
 * If you think there is another solution then please tell me. ཨོཾ་མ་ཎི་པདྨེ་ཧཱུྃ (talk) 05:13, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I made a similar point a month or two ago; I just have limited patience to argue against tankie-talk. After a while it's like responding to Machina yet again on why Buddhist woo is still woo. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 15:05, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Not what you propose, to be honest (which basically seems to be "the Ayn Rand way", as bad of a fantasy as bad as the fantasy of communism). The flaw with the "rule by technocrat" philosophy is the type of skillset that will end up ruling is probably one that is honestly unqualified to do so. There is a lot of luck in the game of life, and people who have gotten away with some luck tend to think they are better than they actually are. One only has to look at certain people in Wall Street or Silicon Valley to realize that there are certain people out there that believe they are Gods On Earth, that are hardly such. And honestly, the chances are better than average that the person who ends up in said technocrat position leadership you propose will be of industry breed, and in true Upton Sinclair fashion, will not only do nothing about climate change, but, in the spirit of Koch / Exxon, actively spread misinformation about it. (That's been the Republican party in the US since the 1980s, what makes you think giving one person more power will actually change this?) Soundwave106 (talk) 12:56, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that the last thing you should have taken away from thinking about the Mad Max franchise is pro-dictator sentiment. 14:13, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * South Korea, after all wars and conflicts and renovations and yo-yoing between democratic and dictatorial governments ended (a substantial number of those deaths)...were no paradise and their government wasn't innocent of vile ugly crimes anainst humabity...but please don't say that China's dictatorial horror and South Korea's was the same. They differed exponentially. China is still suffering the horror of the Mao dictati ship. The length of oppression was shorter and the industrualisation and transformation of South Korea were completely different. And in any case none of that horror was even necesary. Taiwan did it all with even less human consequence. Shabi  DOO  14:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If a revolutionary faction had the same idea and took over, or if this system was implemented peacefully, I doubt they would let an unqualified dolt with no care for climate change run things. And for the record Stalinism is not what I'm advocating, the dictator in question would only need control over industry and a small enforcement group, not the military. ཨོཾ་མ་ཎི་པདྨེ་ཧཱུྃ (talk) 15:16, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you think of any two cases where a dictator came in with the goal of "just controlling one sector and a small security force" (even with good intentions and all sincerity) and didn't end up controlling a lot more and indeed a notably larger "security force"? I cannot think of an example...at least not a dictatorship long enough to make an enormous difference in any policy change. Shabi  DOO  23:51, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's ever been tried before in the first place. ཨོཾ་མ་ཎི་པདྨེ་ཧཱུྃ (talk) 00:43, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Which do you mean, it's never been tried? Do you mean a meritocracy?Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:02, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Gol Sarnitt I mean I don't think there's ever been a dictator which had control over the means of production and law enforcement to an extent, but not the military. In other words a limited dictatorship based on merit. ཨོཾ་མ་ཎི་པདྨེ་ཧཱུྃ (talk) 17:34, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Interesting, but how do you limit that dictatorship? Someone would have to preside over the position, since it would be pretty easy to abuse the powers granted, and we really can't trust every person with power, earned or otherwise, to be motivated to act solely to fill their position before any other motivation that might find them.  What I mean is, something has to be in place to stop the dictators from taking bad actions, and if the filter is not good enough or reliable enough to stop the bad action, it's not good.  And if 2000 some years down the line we're considering dictatorships as a novel idea, I think the propaganda works, and the filters failed.  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 08:58, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Ideally the best way to limit a dictatorship is to have the military act as a counterweight to the dictator's power. They would swear loyalty to the cause and uphold the leader so long as s/he does what is required of him/her. ཨོཾ་མ་ཎི་པདྨེ་ཧཱུྃ (talk) 23:23, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * And what safeguard would you put in place in case the military makes decisions outside their perview? It's kind of hard to stop a bunch of highly trained sheep with guns after all. Shabi  DOO  23:58, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * What safeguard do we have against corrupt politicians, or American funded coups? What safeguard do we have against anything? I'm curious as to what solutions you have in mind. ཨོཾ་མ་ཎི་པདྨེ་ཧཱུྃ (talk) 03:58, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The solution is to suffer the consequences of our decisions. And they should remain OUR decisions. The cliché phrase "the best function of democracy is deposing of bad governments" is not just true but vital for any open and just society. When you take away that mechanism, even for "just a short time" you risk losing nearly everything and invite trouble and possible disaster. The fall out from "short term" dictatorship has almost always been "long term" dictatorship and has mostly turned countries into ugly nightmares. I don't think a solution to the worlds problems should be to risk one ugly nightmare to avoid another ugly nightmare. I'd prefer we knowingly suffered the consequences and worked together towards a solution than it being imposed by a "benevolent tyrant" (if such a thing could ever exist). Shabi  DOO  09:16, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You talk as if every monarch/emperor that ever existed was a despot. ཨོཾ་མ་ཎི་པདྨེ་ཧཱུྃ (talk) 18:45, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * There were some good absolute monarchs. Then they died and got succeeded by awful despotic monarchs. 18:53, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That argument is the equivalent of "hey look over there" while you switch the balls under the cups. We are talking about modern dictators, not monarchs. Can you think of any admirable dictators of the 20th century? If we were to dig up an old dictator and reanimate him (always him) and make him the climate change tyrrant, which one would you pick? Shabi  DOO  22:12, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe Thomas Sankara, Kemal Atatürk or France-Albert René. ཨོཾ་མ་ཎི་པདྨེ་ཧཱུྃ (talk) 06:20, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Attaturk democratised Turkey and did so from the beginning. It was a transitional government (from war to modern democracy)...hardly a dictatorship. If anything Attaturk is PROOF that you can modernize quickly with much less horror and toxic baggage that comes with the Sovietesque iron hand. Shabi  DOO  20:36, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Modernize a country, sure. Stop a climate disaster, nope. ཨོཾ་མ་ཎི་པདྨེ་ཧཱུྃ (talk) 19:03, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I was only 19
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gmgwx77osw

This brought me to tears. — Oxyaena Harass  11:01, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * you kids today don't know nothing. and none them received a heroes welcome. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:19, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * needs a text Watching All Quiet on the Western Front and Grave of the Fireflies was pretty pivotal to my being against war, no matter the enemy. It's old and tired, we know that war kills kids more than it kills the people who care about the war. Gol Sarnitt(talk) 07:00, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * My earliest and most deep rooted political conviction is that war is a sucker's game. They're fought by people who manage to talk themselves into Honor and Glory, or by people not clever enough to avoid them . The 'every soldier's a hero' crap we've lived with for the past eighteen years will always rub me the wrong way. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 17:53, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * During the American Civil War the grunts called it a "rich man's war, poor man's fight." That mentality you mention above is also something many vets detest, that "every soldier is a hero," since it puts them on a pedestal and not as the people they actually are. One should note that military employment is one of the few ways poor people can meaningfully ascend the social ladder nowadays, indeed I may consider going into the military for that very reason. — Oxyaena Harass  19:36, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Jordan Peterson said something that gave conservative Chickenhawks pause. There was some thing about Vietnam being a loss because they built expendable battalions of low IQ kids, woof, OK, sounds like us, and then Peterson quoted some statistic about IQ below, I think 80, and intellectually complained that you can't even put a portion of the underclass in the military.  And all the Chickenhawks I know huffed and grumbled "he's right, he's right, how could we employ these people?"  I guess I don't really have a point here, other than to complain about the circle jerk these people will engage in as long as they are talking about what humans other than themselves are worth.  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:16, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

1000 sysops
User:Cumulus was the 1000th sysop to be demoted.EK (talk) 12:47, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * So...wanna throw a party? RoninMacbeth (talk) 14:04, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Quite a lot, if you ask me. Tinribmancer (talk) 14:13, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * So? — Oxyaena Harass  16:19, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Since there were fewer than 30 voters in the last election, this might be evidence of a cabal or at least of the disinterest of sockpuppets to influence the elections. Bongolian (talk) 18:05, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Can we please throw a party? Tanker One (talk) 18:17, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

🎈🎉🍾🎂🎊 Bongolian (talk) 18:56, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Nice. — Oxyaena Harass  19:32, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * it says when there were 666 sysops everyone got cake. EK (talk) 19:36, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I guess millennialism dictates that the world ended, we just didn't notice it. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 23:44, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

EKRE
Worthy of a page? Pretty long for a wikipedia page, if you ask me. Tinribmancer (talk) 14:16, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

What gets me about the whole climate change thing
Is how goddamn simple the logic is to follow, but the deniers jump through the most ridiculous hoops to get around it and come up with alternate explanations.

Like, here are some basic facts on the matter: We started burning fossil fuels en masse about ~100 years ago. Carbon dioxide is a product of burning fossil fuels. Carbon dioxide is also a greenhouse gas. When we started burning fossil fuels, CO2 levels started rising well above the baseline that has been set for the past 800,000 years. Temperatures started rising steadily as well. This happened because 1) We started burning fossil fuels, and 2) Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.

I get that there are probably holes in this from a purely logical standpoint and the whole concept of anthropogenic global warming is much more complicated, but a child could understand this. How are people being fooled so easily? TheUnderOver (talk) 14:56, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The core of it? The core is the just world hypothesis.  The overall inclination of conservatives, throughout history, not just now(this isn't another one of my FUCKING MODERN CONSERVATIVES bits), is that the way things work today is basically fair and reasonable.  Individuals can be "bad people" and choose, from their lack of individual morality, to do bad things.  And those people should be very harshly punished for being the bad guys.  But society basically works out the way it "should" and when negative outcomes happen, it's because that's natural and how things work.  So start with the conclusion "If climate is changing, it's because it should be" and work backwards.  Get unmistakable evidence that it's changing like we've seen in actual recorded temperatures since 1990?  Well then fine, it should be changing.  Have evidence that somehow the way we've constructed our society is causing the change and that's bad?  Dig in your heels and scream like a maniac.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:37, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think populist American right-wingers would care that much were it not for Koch / Exxon / etc. pushing their fake shit into the political realm. The populist right wing in America basically is all about WASP American identity style ethos and various rumblings about "other identities" at its core. Business has found it very advantageous to wrap certain subjects advantageous for business into this framework, to sell ideology (or even actual products, such as guns) to "the sheeple", as it were. All you need to do is for populist voices to start drumming up Conspiracies and UN Plots, add ancient American boogeyman words like "Communism" / "Socialism" / "Marxism", and top it off with more snarl words like "hippies" or "California" or something. Thus, a certain part of the public buys into it. Kind of sad in a way, but that's marketing for you. Soundwave106 (talk) 17:21, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Another wiki
Came across this - does it deserve more mention on RW than this sentence? Anna Livia (talk) 18:31, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Webshites exists for a reason. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:31, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Only two major users. Meh. 18:41, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Seemed fairly borderline - if anyone has the energy, transfer it. 18:43, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Just doing a quick skim-through of Webshites, it looks like it might also be a good idea to start going through and noting which websites are dead at this point. A decent handful that I tried visiting don't exist anymore, and it would be helpful to have a tag for that. TheUnderOver (talk) 18:59, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Or maybe call them "Deadshites" instead? Tinribmancer (talk) 19:16, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes. Wikispooks. One of the information sources that this nutty DJ I know uses. They have a weird opinion about Obama and REALLY hate Think tank "Le Cercle" for some reason... Tinribmancer (talk) 19:16, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * And here's their article on Trump. I seriously have no idea whether they're pro or anti-trump... Tinribmancer (talk) 19:21, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * that article is slightly anti trump imo EK (talk) 19:40, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I see that they are Birthers... Probably part of their whole Truther shtick. 20:31, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Their page on Truthers... It's just so perfect in the amount of Truther apologia talking points... 20:42, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * So are they suitable for RW-snark then? Anna Livia (talk) 23:08, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * A better name for that site, would be "conspiracywiki" tbh. Seriously, look up "Freemasons", "Shadow Government" & "Illuminati". Iirc, they also have a lunatic page on 9/11 & FEMA (both what they're "constructing" & the organisation itself). Tinribmancer (talk) 23:10, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * They are apparently linked to two places I have never heard of up until now, Cryptome (which apparently is a Wikileaks like site which seems to have, per the Wikipedia page, about the same amount of tact in handling sensitive information) and the "Deep Politics Forum", which is basically what you expect (thankfully not on the QAnon insanity train level, but a sober analysis of, say, the JFK assassination will not be possible here). Some of the Wikispook's pages on legitimate concerns (eg the Edward Snowden page) seem okay, but some about even legitimate "conspiracies" seem overblown (eg the Project MKUltra page, which tries to tag Jonestown, John Lennon, etc. to the program), and ala Wikileaks, on Russia, a nation that is *way* more spook-oriented these days, expect complaints about the complainers. :p Soundwave106 (talk) 23:46, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No pro-Russian shilling here. No siree Bob. 00:47, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

This site might not know them, but they sure do know about us.
And they seem pissed. Tinribmancer (talk) 19:58, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The site is probably worthy of RW treatment just because they're pissed at us. Bongolian (talk) 07:07, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * They also don't care much for the other place either - part of the deep state (apparently). Anna Livia (talk) 15:50, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thye look sufficiently crank-adjacent for an article.Hubert (talk) 10:35, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * PROCRASTINATION PROTOCOLS INITIATED. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  13:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It's almost a one man band; active users. The one man being apparently a bearded Brit. Scream!! (talk) 13:48, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm late, but I have added them to our Pissed page. -- Goatspeed. 13:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Thrinaxodon
Question, should I pull out my old Thrinaxodon persona and join this man in his festivities for the lulz? — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  08:29, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * YES! Tinribmancer (talk) 08:44, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

More lulz
Their articles on Propaganda (Which lists the BBC), Fake News, Communism (seriously, what's with this guy and his obsession with Le Cercle?) & Conspiracy BS Tinribmancer (talk) 09:49, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's unreasonable to list BBC as propaganda, even if they're pretty tame in their delivery of it compared to other state news agencies. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:52, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Registering
I was gonna register as Thrinaxodon but the account creation process mandates email and real name. Hell no, I`m not engaging in Citizendium 2.0, especially one ran by a kook such as him. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  17:09, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That shit is a hard no for me as well. Were you intentionally going for a dinosaur name? Nevermind, looked it up, yeah, that's a dinosaur. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 01:44, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thrinaxodon isn't a dinosaur, it's a cynodont, ie a stem mammal. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  14:27, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * nerd 14:32, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * no u. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  15:40, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Cynodont?
 * Duce should've linked this. Also, have you ever heard of fake e-mail addresses and names? You could call yourself Alex Jones and make a new e-mail address for your account. Something like "bigOx@hotmail.com".Tinribmancer (talk) 09:18, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Goddammit that's awesome, and yes I have. I'll think of that too btw, I've done them before. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  12:37, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Clogosphere Eugenics WaPo thing, I'm lost
So there's an article that's premised here as "Washington Post supports Eugenics"

Now, I try very hard to not be stupid, and I don't eat out of the WaPo hand. When they spent all that time reporting the Snowden leaks and then had an editorial about how he deserved to be imprisoned if he ever set foot on US soil, I was like "who were your parents?"

But on what level does selective sperm donorship sit on eugenics? It's definitely an interesting question to bring up, but when a sperm bank advertises sperm for monies, what makes an extra special eugenicist argument out of it? That the bank makes unsupported claims and finds itself in no fault is kinda shitty, that the mother understands the difficulties of raising autistic children and would warn against, what is essentially, a product being misrepresented, is unfortunate but also a pretty normal thing to do. "Hey, look out, you're paying for semen and this batch is high risk for this trait." It's not that I value autistic people less, I just don't get the eugenics complaint when it comes to advertising and selling the baby batter. I mean, it's not like the guy's unseeded sperm is literal babies.

I mean, I guess you could be against her seeking damages. But that's not being against eugenics. What am I missing? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:40, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I`m autistic and I wasn't a devil child, oh the poor neurotypicals who have to treat their offspring like human beings for once. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  11:29, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * As someone with 2 autistic siblings (I myself am not autistic), I can definitely say I was the most problematic child. I think the problem with the article is that it paints the existence of autistic people as tragic.  The feel of the article is that the spreading of the sperm of the sperm donor "has to stop" as if he is invariably ruining lives.  The article even appears to blame the mother's failed relationship on the mere presence of the autistic children.  It is dehumanizing at best and fear mongering at worst.  MirrorIrorriM (talk) 14:21, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I am extraordinarily uncomfortable with the notion of people being able to select their child so he/she/they isn't on the spectrum. I am one of a few autistic children on my dad's side of the family; if each of our parents had the choice of raising us and raising another child who isn't on the spectrum... I don't think I am able to say they would choose to raise us. That's a question that no one should ever have to ask themselves. RoninMacbeth (talk) 16:01, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It's uncomfortable, and it is quite literally eugenics, but I wouldn't want to go as far as banning it. It troubles me how simplistic the average person's understanding of polygenic environmentally interacting characteristics are, and how many people are ready to ascribe subhumanity to the autistic spectrum.  But genetic screening can spare both parent a child from some horrific conditions.  Living until 10 while your bones slowly degrade to dust is torture, and yet from just a single mutation, it could happen to any child-to-be.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:17, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It is quite complicated, isn't it? RoninMacbeth (talk) 16:22, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It is, but I don't weep for the never born. We don't lose a RoninMacbeth from the world in an arbortion.  You're here and we're glad you are.  The next generation is going to grow up differently than we did, and maybe one of those differences is fewer autistic people, but they won't be bad people as a result.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:36, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * When I came on here today, I didn't expect to cry. Thank you. RoninMacbeth (talk) 16:55, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Were it possible I'd happily have been selected to not have The Big A myself, and I do seriously wish it didn't exist in me anyway. To be sure, my parents never once were worse to me than my 3 non-autistic siblings (save a very distant cousin I've met once I'm the only one in my family!) and they've worked extremely hard to get me what I needed. I'm one of the relative success stories, and it's still badly degraded my life; I'm nowhere near what I could be in many regards, my family would be closer without me (and I deserve most of the credit for that, if I met me as a kid I'd hate me). It's classified as a disability for a reason, and I'd resist any attempt to call it otherwise. But given how poorly understood the causes of autism are, going down this road now anyway is a fool's errand. Anyone remember the "depression gene" fiasco? The Blade of the Northern Lights (<font face="MS Mincho" color="black">話して下さい ) 21:42, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I've known people and worked with people with autism at varying levels of the spectrum. My mother taught special education.  I've been told by several people "Oh, it's ok, I know you're autistic" even though I don't have a diagnosis.  It's a little frustrating, because I'm pretty sure I'm not autistic, but people keep assuming it.  I did cash in on it one time after a show when the lead singer of the band my band opened for was drunk like "no, we have a buddy back home, we get it, we love him, we love you, do you want a t-shirt or a vinyl or something?"  and I got really quietly pissed off.  "Oh jeez.  Oh, ok.  I'll take a record."  I also went to special first grade before I went to regular first grade.  It was called "transitional first grade" and I got put in first grade math and reading and sent to the library a lot.  But also in my senior year of high school, I liked a girl, and since I was 19, at her suggestion I worked at the same daycare center as her with the most autistic kid I've ever met.  Second grader, not especially verbal, no volume control and repeated anything he might have ever said word-for-word in kind of a tape recorder fashion.  He was using the words he had heard and understood. And his game was chutes and ladders, nothing else.  He cheated at it, he went up slides too.  But once you told the guy a thing, that was that.  I musta heard "You go up and down in this game" "(names omitted to protect the innocent) pushed me into the piano" "movie is over, turn it off."  more than I'll ever hear any other three sentences in my life.  Prone to fits that needed quick and concise explanations repeated to him. And it was, in a sense, easier to hang out with the guy because I also covered the 2 combined classrooms of preschool boys from 3 pm whenever the 4pm teacher could get out of there (there was a max number for one guardian, I think 10 preschoolers) to close, boys and girls with the girls' teacher if enough kids got picked up, and stayed with the last ones until close.  And he was always the first kid picked up.  And it was so much easier to give a ton of special attention to one kid among schoolagers who all at least kind of got that he was different, but not because he was trying to be, than it was to look after 10 preschoolers in general.  But I didn't have to do much, I didn't have to worry about his future.  I also didn't have to impregnate a woman or carry for 9 months.  I mean, there are a lot of things I am totally insulated from here.  But I've known people with autism and people with Asperger's and I don't have a problem with it.  And I don't have a problem with people who wish to conceive picking and choosing a donor with all the info tied to it.  But it's not exactly a 1:1 comparison to adoption, and after a lot of consideration I think that may be the underlying nagging presence that has me just as uncomfortable as anyone.  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:03, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Duce
Did Duce LANCB? Oof. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  11:31, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I’m still here. 11:39, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry about not paying attention to the Saloon when all that crap was posted. 11:43, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Don’t be. What I said was unfair and uncalled for, and I apologize to the community as a whole. I was having a really bad day, and I probably shouldn’t have been on the internet at all. 11:57, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Your point was valid though. We as a community should step in when any of us has such a bad day that we consider wading into that kind of muck. People have done it for me, and for others as well, and that's a good thing. Friends don't let friends support dictators or mass murder of stupid people. 12:29, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you're talking about. What did you do? Tinribmancer (talk) 13:48, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Imma SHAACB ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:18, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * SHAACB?
 * Should there be a RW punchball? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:26, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Mmmm, what did I miss? 19:17, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I made it up, Staying Here And Always Coming Back. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:28, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * AWHILE. Active When Hopefully I'm Living and Engaged.  Like, I'll be here A WHILE Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:56, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * RW long period comet - appears, goes off into the distance and returns (unless captured by another wiki-planet). Anna Livia (talk) 17:33, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

On Working out
I’ll be honest, I really only started working out to get noticed by other guys. It’s kind of a secret shame of mine because I felt like I would forever remain invisible. Even today I can’t help but look in the mirror and see something lacking, that I’m not enough. Despite claims in the past that I’m told I am “hot” by guys I met at gay areas I just look in the mirror and think they must be deluded or something.

Yet in the gym the weight lifting is actually somewhat enjoyable. I do what I can and sometimes I can do more than that and the reality of a gym is that no one really cares what you’re doing or is looking at you.

It’s also worth nothing that most the men I admire (fictional characters) are all those who work hard for personal goals. Joe from Megalobox, Ryu from Street Fighter, Tanjiro from Demon Slayer, and Akihiko from Persona 3 (to name few). I secretly wanted to be like them, working toward a personal goal, most of them being physical fitness. In fact it was Megalobox that originally inspired me to go to the gym. For those who don’t know most of those characters are from anime and video games.

But every now and then the old wounds and motivations pop up about looking right to attract a man, not to mention it’s hard for me to not look at the other guys. I guess I’m caught in a spot where the original reason is morphing into something else but the old wounds still pop up.Machina (talk) 22:43, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If multiple people say you are hot, then you are hot. Stop doubting that. The insecurity and lack of confidence the doubt in your looks and yourself create is toxic and it will affect you and your relationships...and obviously it is all pointless because people say you are hot. Stop doubting them and stop doubting yourself. I don't think you have to make any herculean effort to attract guys. Just work on yourself. Confidence above all. Confidence confidence confidence. Social skills. Cognitive therapy works extremely well for all of this. If you wanna work out then work out. If you're doing it solely to attract guys then I wonder what lengths you'll go to and effort you'll make to maintain a relationship once you have one. Working out can be fun and you can get into the zone and enjoy it (I did) but if at the end of the day it is labourious for you, you spend most of your time feeling inadequate next to muscle monkeys and pictures of Chris Hemsworth and find it all tiring and time consuming...then I wonder if it's actually a good investment of your precious free time. Insecure people frequently get suckered and deal with the endless games and bullshit guys can play on each other. If you are attractive and a good person and have a few qualities (even if they aren't those qualities people consider prime dating but any at all) then self-confidence should be a breeze if you work on it (and to be honest if you were hideous there's still no reason to not have confidence, several of my friends are the beast in beauty and the beast relationships and they score fabulous nice and interesting people by confidence and being good intersting people). These days I weigh up to 5kg overweight, which is a tiny belly. I remember having some chocolate icecream and my friend telling me "You won't score a guy if you let that belly get bigger" and I laughed my ass off. As if I'd give up the few of life pleasures, most notably chocolate and icecream just for some fucking guy. Seriously? You're obviously conscious about yourself and your own personal activities and how they relate to your own image and self confidence and goals of meeting guys. If you stay self conscious and don't allow yourself to over-do the "obsessive effort to attract a Romeo" and sacrafices to feel possibly a little better about yourself. That's great. You'll obviously know then if you are tipping the scale off deep into the territory of "doing shit just for some fucking guy" territory. Of course this is all in my humble opinion. Sometimes the most attractive people on Earth don't believe it even when thousands of people tell them you are hot. You are almost certainly attractive. Confidence.  Shabi  DOO  23:41, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Except it is true about appearance, especially if you are gay. I don't really have any redeeming qualities that other people would like so I need the appearance to get noticed. I'm used to being alone a lot of the time, though by used to I mean tolerate since I'm not this by choice. I know people say that I am hot, but the guys who say that aren't "traditionally" hot so I think they are just blowing smoke hoping that I'll get with them for some reason. Confidence in my experience is very off putting, people will ignore you and just go back into their own groups doing what they do. Sometimes I do wonder what people are thinking when they go around telling people that confidence is the key. Maybe in movies but not reality. In my case confidence won't solve my problems because I have no redeeming qualities. I'm what most would call "boring", as in I don't do or need much and my needs are as simple as a flower just needing water and sunlight. I don't have many interests, don't go out much, and don't spend much, I'm not up on trends or social media. As such a lot of conversation flies over my head. In fact the only reason I had some guys walk up to me was just because they thought I was hot, which didn't mean much. And the one guy who was out of my league when he called me that I think it was just for my body. Because with him I sacrificed a lot of my comfort and money, and free time just so he wouldn't leave because I never thought I could land a guy like him again. So no, confidence doesn't work and all I have to get any guy is looks and even those don't last. I'm not hot, just a sucker.Machina (talk) 02:48, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you would greatly benefit from cognitive therapy (every one of us would). There are simply far too many contradictions in what you say and so much self doubt it must be crippling. And unnecessary. The fact that you are so introspective is a major redeeming quality and yet you don't see it just as you won't believe the compliments people straight up tell you. Cognitive therapy can be pricey so if you cannot afford it then it might be covered via national insurance or possibly party covered by private insurance. Shabi  DOO  03:58, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * p.s. Dating in the LGTB world has gotten tedious and sad now that 99% of it happens on grindr etc. The best people I ever met were in person and I got noticed simply because I was having fun with my friends and showed self confidence. I know this because I was directly told this by the best guys I met (and had relationships with). I didn't dismiss their compliments especially after I kept hearing the same ones again and again.  Shabi  DOO  04:14, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

There aren't any contradictions in what I have said, it's all reality. Being introspective is a defect, since it tends to lose you lots of friends and relationships because no one likes people asking hard questions or thinking too much. The compliments people pay me are about qualities I don't have. As for in public, unless you are into the bar scene or at least fem on some level or into the pop culture you will find no one, experience has taught me that much. It's not self doubt it's more like the harsh truth that I'm either too boring or too "strange" for anyone to want to be with. You I think need to get out of the fairy tale that the media has spun, the same one that I foolishly believed in at some point and gave me false hope but didn't prepare me for how people really are. The compliments people tell me are just blowing smoke so they can "Get with me". Like a sucker I believed them to be true.Machina (talk) 20:35, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Your words completely mirror what friends of mine have said before. I had a friend with the very same looped thought cycles. Was a different human being after cognitive therapy and for once in her life, even a little happy. Good luck in any case with the gym and the dating scene. Shabi  DOO  23:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

CBT can't erase the hard evidence. All it did for your friend was make them forget the reality.Machina (talk) 00:28, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * that is out and out bullshit. nothing you have said here is true in the slightest, yet you talk about hard evidence and reality, as if you have you presented anything but your own self deluding perspective, your own rationalising to not have to do anything but continue to feel sorry for yourself.


 * if you are looking for a 'soul mate' in pubs and clubs, or on grindr, you are looking in the wrong place. why would anyone expect to just bump into someone in those places when all you have to go on initially is their looks and their demeanour? people look for fun in those places first and foremost, anything more is a bonus. its potluck if you have anything in common at all. at the very least you can just say no thanks, and be flattered at the interest. learn to take a compliment.


 * its counterproductive to be even looking for a life partners or soul mates or anything like that all in the first place. you meet someone new you only priority is to enjoy yourself. anything more is a bonus. you enjoy the company and you meet up again. then something more might form. that's how relationships are made. and if it doesn't, then you would still have had fun. learn to be happy being single. then you might not seem so desperate, so needy. it puts people off before you can even tell if you might get along.


 * 'no one likes hard questions or thinking too much' that right there is complete bullshit. what hard questions? what is thinking too much? every conversation doesnt have to be a search for the meaning of life. its wearying if that's all you have. and certainly not of the bat. learn to make small talk. you ave to put people at ease if you want talk big.


 * and here you are complaining that people tell you that you are hot, that they want to 'get with you'. boo hoo. poor you. I will say again, learn to take a compliment.


 * the only reality here is your own lack of confidence, your own self loathing, while at the same time masking by an arrogance that only you know the 'truth' and everyone you meet are just frivolous and shallow.


 * ive been through it all myself. shabidoo is correct. cbt or counselling might be answer, but only if you make a genuine effort and drop all the excuses. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:12, 19 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm certainly no expert on today's gay dating scene but (1) people tend to be attracted to others who have shared features https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0265407508096700 -- so if guys are attracted to you, take the goatdamn compliment and consider being attracted to them right back; and (2) I agree totally with what AMassiveGay and ShabiDOO said about CBT helping your esteem problems, and add that hypnosis, if done well by a qualified non-quack, might also help. https://www.apa.org/monitor/2011/01/hypnosis CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 03:02, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yikes. You're full of clever excuses and an evasive pessimism and a "why bother" attitude and a fatalism which is an insurmountable wall. I wouldn't be surprised if you are depressed (though I hope you aren't). I agree with what AMassiveGay has said about dating in the LGTB world. Fuck grindr and endless time wasting in gay bars. You might luck out but will be a million times more successful meeting through a group of nice trusted gay friends, a gay sports team, gay arts group etc. Have a good time with friends, develop social skills (like who you should hang out with for example), build good friendships, know people before you date or get introduced by trusted friends. Much more likely to meet your goals and actually have fun. But you can only do that if you work on your self doubt and insecurity. It's not easy to admit you're stuck in some negative thought patterns and face the effort that goes into self improvement. But thousands of people do it every day, successfully.  Shabi  DOO  23:04, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Again I have to reiterate that you are all wrong. I learned that guys were only into me because they found me "hot" which didn't mean much from the people who said it because they were just buttering me up so I would get with them. Those who didn't left because I was "boring" in that I didn't do much, know much, or needed much (just imagine a human houseplant). Having done that with many men I realized that the only way to get attention and maintain interest was the gym.

So no, no warped thinking, errors, and my childhood was pretty much supportive parents who couldn't see what was in front of them. It all came from cold reality. The reality that no one wants the actual me so I have to pretend and perform to get anything or talk to anyone. Playing games that others play but I don't like and talking about junk I don't care about. No amount of therapy will change the reactions of other people or cold hard reality, so unless your advice is some rewriting of my fundamental being to the point that I'm not even me anymore I don't see how it's going to help. So no, it is cold hard reality and the "negative" patterns are merely the result of heaps of evidence from my interactions with people. I'm not desperate nor do I come off as that in public. I follow all the steps shown and advice given to me but the reality just stares back at me in the face every time. I enjoy my own company but no one else does. Like I keep trying to tell people CBT doesn't work when it's cold reality that is the problem.Machina (talk) 04:33, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps one day you'll rethink things. Good luck in any case. Shabi  DOO  22:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I can't work out, I don't have the money to spend on the gym membership or the calories required to bulk up, that's a commitment that just does not apply to my body type or where I'm at. My dad, who was a state champion wrestler, slipped a disc, and I'm a lanky softbody (I did wrestling for a year, can still outwrestle some of my heavier friends when they are drunk, I hate wrestling) so since I was 15 I've been really focused on lifting form, posture, and limiting myself when it's just too stupid to try and lift or carry something.  You can get a lot of weight off the floor if you squat down to its center and then hug it close.  But you can really hurt yourself if you don't know what you're doing.  Pushing yourself is great, but you HAVE to have a buddy if you're going to bench a weight that is heavier than you've ever benched before.   That bar slips out of your hands, on the preferred body vertical lift, it's best case scenario hitting your chin.  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:44, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * one word: calisthenics. no gym required. no spotter required. no cash required. just your own body weight. (and maybe a pull up bar). AMassiveGay (talk) 07:32, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I don’t have a problem with the weight being to heavy or anything like that. It’s more an issue of trying to go on a regular basis. But that’s a little off topic. What’s I want to say is how the “advice” so far is based on ignoring reality.Machina (talk) 20:55, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't really understand why you even posted this if you already made up your mind about everything. Desperate to attract guys and only think you can do it by using up all your valuable free time in a gym? Find the time. Don't do other things. Can't find the time? Wallow in your own self pity and feel inadequate and don't even bother trying to hook up with guys, they'll all look at you and laugh at your non-existent muscles and pull a diva roll of the eyes. I mean yeah, that's reality. Gotta face up to the "truth". Not at all a highly exaggerated view of the world through the lens of toxic negative thought processes. Shabi  DOO  23:18, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Except it isn’t toxic, negative or exaggerated but a scientifically founded conclusion based on the vast wealth of evidence and testing among different people and social groups. It’s not my fault if you don’t want to accept the reality that I had to painfully come to know after many years. Many years of hell and advice and people assuring me that things weren’t the way I thought they were and then being left speechless when I told them the results of my “testing”. The reality is that without a body I have nothing people want or are into.Machina (talk) 01:59, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You're putting yourself up against some unattainable standards, if that's why you want to work out, go for it, but spoiler alert. You will continue to be unattainable as long as your standards for desire are that narrow. Not arguing against narrowing your standards, but dude, be accepting of it, because it's sounding EXTREMELY narrow on your end.  And get that there isn't some girl or guy out there looking for you.  It's about accepting who you are looking for.  I fully support your exercising.  And it will actually broaden your sex appeal. Do it, go for it, but if you are determined to do it because it should make you more appealing without narrowing other standards you're in the same trap that gets girls you don't even like knocked up.   Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:41, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I don’t think you understand what I am getting at. It’s not impossible standards it’s just that without my looks I don’t have anything else people want. I’m “boring” because I don’t do or need much.Machina (talk) 19:37, 22 September 2019 (UTC)


 * 'a scientifically founded conclusion based on the vast wealth of evidence and testing among different people and social groups.' jesus fuck listen to yourself. a gym fit body does not equal magical pulling power. it does not equal a successful relationship. you cannot see abs under a shirt in a club. if you like tight tops that show of physique or at a venue where the dress code is a towel, your god like physique does nothing but catch the eye of someone. if that. lighting, what you had for lunch, can make you look positively obese. its how those transformation claims on supplement ads work. a visible six pack is not visible 24 ours a day. even if you obviously buff at all times, nothing happens if you don't wander over and say hi. the clubs are full of people dolefully making eye contact (or thinking they have), wondering why the other doesn't come over. body sculpting might build your confidence but it doesn't build anyone elses. so you either lack the awareness to pick up cues that might confirm their interest, and despite your aesthetic perfection you still lack the confidence to mosey over. because you'll be realising aesthetics is a just a tiny tiny part of not just attraction, but expecting anything more than a second glance. muscles don't make you suave. don't make you sound less stilted with a limited selection of chatuplines. it doesn't put people at ease, doesn't give you an inkling of what they are into, what you into, establish a rapport, reveal a shared interest, a connection. someones visual appearance is only a broad ideal, to narrow a wide field. its one box to tick. personality ticks more boxes. more important. a winning personality can make you give someone a try who you wouldn't have thought to even consider. they guy flexing across from across the room is but a pretty mannequin all the way over there, and when he does come over, they might be some kind of android with a six pack. or just an arrogant prick. you wouldn't trust them to give a decent one night stand, mindless anonymous sex still requires engagement to get going, or be an good. you never wondered why wannabe pick up artists are dumbfounded when they still cant pull after all that time in the gym?


 * and this is all without going into the narrow range of what you think people like or look for in a mate. you never heard of a bear? or a twink? or the variance in a what a gym fit bod is? pure stength training has people benching a hummer, but you could be forgiven for thinking they are just fat. body builders range massive and veiny with a weird bubble gut, to just a little more definition than scrawny. some like older guys, some like em young. some find a toned, but not massively muscled, body the height off putting effeminacy - real men require body hair and beer belly. you are pulled to words slim fem Asian guys, who you tower over, because you like it when your partner calls you daddy. it doesn't work for you if they could snap your twig like arms without even thinking. some folk only like black folk, or at least what ever sexual stereotype porn has molded for them. some folk let you know more about what they don't like than what they do. some like older, younger, butch, fem. and what you are looking for might change depending what you focus is at any given time. they tick all the boxes and still leave you could. and its only what people say they look for if you try to pin them down, or force them to specify preferences on a dating site. it might be accurate. it doesn't take in when you pick outside these limited boxes, or reject whole groups because, its never worked out before, or you've had fun times with this group, its not all you like, but other options are a lot of work.


 * for years I thought myself a freak. because people repeated told me so. strangers would shout abuse from across the street. I remember someone came out running out a pub once to verbally abuse me then went running back in. small town mentality, and nothing of value is in Essex. buts all I ever heard so I believed it for the longest time. what made me a freak? im bit blonder than average. for all intensive purposes an albino. then I came out. I left the circle of friends, who were always than less than supportive. I left Essex. I cam to London. found that people like the look of me. my blondness in london is not so freakish that anyone bothers to mention it if they are repulsed. suddenly people who were amazed and absolutely loved my blondness were all I heard. I wasn't a freak, I was exotic, and I learned my looks were polarising, either love them or hate them. various fitness regimes over the years had come together that i could actually believe what I had always doubted, I was a looker, and even in London I still stood out from the crowd. I am six four. muscular. lean. naturally platinum blonde hair, china white skin, - I got a gimpy smile, but a neutral expression, and I am almost stunning. I know this, because people tell me this, and the mirror confirms this. still cant pull in a club though, I know I stand out - again, im six four, and I almost glow in the dark. because my looks arnt polarising. most people are apathetic about my looks. I never hear from them. only the extremes. from people who like my looks so much they have to let me know. and those who take a visceral dislike to my look, or at least different to their norm that I don't look them. its been all positive for years. i am not everyones cup of tea, a knock back isn't a personal slight and only an arsehole thinks what they think is attractive matters to any but themselves. but yeah, despite my subjective beauty, still cant pull. so used to abuse for years, I cant see flirty come ons, unless they really obvious. or my own looks and glances aren't picked up. either way no one comes near me, and if I see someone definitely into me, I baulk.  my nerves make my dreary smalltalk stilted as well as inane. my jokes fall flat. I have nothing to say


 * but fuck it, I am happy with my own company, and for years, saunas scratched the itch for human contact. a grope and exposing of the bits you wish to make use of are difficult signals to miss. but encounters were wordless and anonymous by design. the fleeting emotional connection of the act was built the intensity of the sleazy debauchery.


 * shabidoo doesn't like grindr or hook up sites, and I can understand the sentiment. but they meet a need. when the date is the sex, its easy to filter out the obviously mismatched. you usually figure out at least the bare minimum information to know you might be after the same thing. and a lot of the nerves people have when hooking up are dispelled when you already know when you actually meet what you both want. if it goes well, you will meet again. the sex makes you more comfortable which other. you can have actual conversations the more you meet. learn more about each other. who knows? there might be more than sex, if not? I have lovers ive been seeing for decade. no soul mates, circumstance me makes wary of going any further right now. still love of varying shades. this isn't Hollywood. there is no cold hard reality, only imperfect perspective. i can barely trust mine. yours seems a little warped. for traditional date and romance not sticky with lube, other sites are available.


 * your focus on the sole physical aspect of all this, as the sole tangible thing, is telling. you've made it clear in other posts your problem with subjective value, how if things are not concrete, universally true, it has no value. that your feeling or emotions are worthless if not divinely inspired, that biological mechanisms for things like love and hate, make whatever we feel fake or worthless. get comfortable with uncertainty. get comfortable with things having value for no other reason than you like them. because science can explain a process, doesn't mean the we don't feel their effects.


 * human attraction is tricky. its subjective. your perspective of it and problems with it are subjective. maybe we can ignore it all if we manufacture a truth. its everyone else, they just shallow instinct driven monkeys. why address your own shortcomings for a bunch idiot apes? you know the truth. maybe it helps you sleep at night. you've shutdown any way of moving forward. denigrated all arguments for a way forward as delusion. all that remains is to stick your fingers in your ears and chant i'm not listening. you make other human beings worthless, their opinions worthless, all the easier to ignore anything that might give you pause, and this will come across in all your dealings with people, no matter how well you think you hide it, ensuring they will never give you a chance to prove you wrong. AMassiveGay (talk) 00:24, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That all seems to make, just, a whole lot of sense. p.s. grindr is totally fine if hookups are your goal or you hope to win the hookup to relationship lottery. Dating has become tedious with grindr (and all other online dating) because it's made it a lot more tedious to meet people in an organic way. When so many people just do it the easy (though less successful) electronic route. There are many bars where literally everyone is glued to their phone. It's boring and sad. Shabi  DOO  13:43, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Machina I'd love to see some of this scientific evidence. Could you please link a couple papers or reports? Shabi  DOO  13:44, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Massive Gay you are wrong again. The thing is that physical attraction is one of those objectively subjective things where people more or less agree. The exceptions you mentioned are just tiny niches. Bears are a small percentage of the community while the majority are either twinks or muscle men. The average ones tend to lose out. By science I meant the scientific method in that I repeatedly tested things and collected data. I can say that personality doesn’t meant a damn when dating if your life is similar to an old man or zen monk. That’s the position I find myself in. The reality of dating and friends is that you have to offer things for the other person, it’s similar to entertainment. The problem is that I’m too “boring” and that the only reason people give me the time of day is that I am attractive. But when it comes to conversation people ignore me mid sentence, don’t call back, or just blow me off. If it wasn’t for my looks the gay men I met wouldn’t stick around.Machina (talk) 21:21, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Machina you are talking about the kind of shit everyone in the dating world has to deal with regardless of how good looking you are or other quality. The answer, pretty much what I and everyone else I have ever known through personal experience and the coming happy results is: pick better places to meet people, build up your bloody confidence and develop some social skills and stop hypergeneralizing about the dating scene. It is not a single block of shallow stupid dicks. That's totally absurd and ridiculous to assume the dating world and guys in general are universally like your small limited negative unfortunate experiences. You talk about "facing reality" and yet seem to be ignoring other people's own personal experience which totally clashes with your so called "truth". As you've been continually ignoring massivegay and what he's said I'll repeat it. The hottest bod and most attractive stud won't get very far with no social skills or confidence. You can keep denying this is the case but that's the "face up to reality" that you should be dealing with. Personal development. It seems you've done little of this, are afraid of attempting it and will go to extreme lengths to dismiss and discount it, you know, forget the details and the success rates involved and dealing with the possibility that just maybe, just perhaps, this "all it does is mask reality" is actually your insecurity and fear of admitting you have issues and fear of not being able to overcome them, is tainting your attitude towards cognitive therapy. It's such total classic denial and avoidance. And cognitive therapy isn't simply a solution to your dating woes. It covers a large range of negative thought patterns that likely get in the way of forming all kinds of healthy relationships, and deeply affects your work, free time, career, life goals and health. But don't let a few decades of demonstrated success and detailed explanations of how negative thought patterns can skew ones "reality" or "truth" and how one kind of therapy in particular has a great track record in helping overcome it. Everyone in this forum would benefit from it and you in particular, as you are clearly suffering because of difficult negative thought patterns. It's such a shame. Shabi  DOO  23:26, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

The record you speak of is only 50-75% which is a prettt big margin of error and even then they clearly state that the effects aren’t clear long term. As for me I’m not going to bars or anything like that but just the gay social groups thinking they would be different. Even some variations of a GSA but I learned that they weren’t any different from people in bars. You aren’t seeming to get that my evidence is from over 100 encounters and each one ended the same. I was too “boring for people” and I only got attention for being “cute”. I wanted to believe that the rest of humanity went like the depictions on TV about it turns out that isn’t too far from the truth. I’m not generalizing here.Machina (talk) 00:41, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll get specific with you. And I've never had a long term working relationship, because I'm picky or get picked up by picky girls.  I get that it sucks, really I do.  I'm a pretty boring low-maintenance person too.  I've got the same thing from girls, I'm not trying to rule the world.  I've been broken up with for not wanting to do shit else to do with my time but hang out, I've broken up with girls who do the same to me.  It's confusing, it's difficult, when you care about matchmaking every match has a limit.  So instead, get a hobby.  Set one goal or at the very least get one hobby that you can honestly prioritize over getting laid, and prioritize it as such.  You can always M-Bate, it's OK to do when you're all fired up but not sure what you're after, and sometimes it's more dignified than just screwing. I don't think girls like to share that secret with us. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:42, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * machina you have not as you claimed made any real or significant research at all. you have not applied a scientific method, and whatever data may have been collected is no way meaningful while you are clearly unable to make any sense of it. the only lesson you seem to have learned from this is that men are only interested in you for your looks because you in your words are boring. this is not a conclusion born from objective study but everything you have done to ensure that is the only conclusion to be had. if this were a real study, you have rigged it.
 * nothing you have said suggests you have made any real engagement with any of these chaps who have shown any interest. without any sort of engagement you have not given them any reason to look beyond an initial physical attraction. you've not given any indication that there is anything more. you've written them off as shallow as a result when in truth you know nothing of what they want because you've stumbled at this first hurdle. and every time you have stumbled makes your next encounter more certain to end the same way, with crass generalisations and unfounded assumptions more and more validated each time. its more a defence mechanism than insightful observation because your sense of self worth taking a hit each time.
 * its just as likely the people who you meet may also be piss poor at engagement as you. even the most confident of people will be ridden with insecurities of one sort or another. you generally cant tell from a brief encounter and you cannot expect others to do the work for you.
 * you've mentioned you live like a monk and require little, you posit this as a reason for you being perceived as boring. in all likelihood, that is probably true, but its the wrong message to take home. the take home should be that you are your limiting your life experience, limiting your horizons to point that it is damaging your own wellbeing. i'm sure its tolerable mostly, people can get used to all kinds of deprivation that you can almost forget all the things you are missing, but I bet you are prone to a crippling loneliness more often than you would like - why else would we be having this conversation? how accurately do you think you can judge the character and motivations of others? what shared experiences can you bond over? how can you even be a judge of your own character when you have no metric to compare to?
 * it makes all but the most shallow of interactions with people more than challenging. meaningful engagement will be impossible. it can make you retreat from the world. you can never grow.
 * people are incredibly diverse, more so than you credit them. there is incredible diversity in even the things where at first glance there is agreement - in their hopes, their dreams, what they find attractive. this is born out from my own experiences. I have been, lets say prolific in that area. but you'll never see that with your eyes closed as you push people away.AMassiveGay (talk) 18:43, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed Gol! When I go to parties and clubs or any environment where flirting and matchmaking is going on...I notice two different groups of people. Those who are having fun and those who are always looking. Ironically I see people far more successful when, they're simply having fun with their friends. Successful in the short term and especially in the long term. Shabi  DOO  19:33, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

MassiveGay you are wrong again. These are not hasty generalizations but again observations I came across in my many interactions with men. You are also wrong in that people are diverse, in fact the closer you look the more similar you will find that people are rather than different which is why you can make "sweeping" judgments about them. My eyes aren't closed just open and I can assure you I am not rigging anything. I have put myself out there plenty of times and tried a variety of different interests but nothing stuck. Drinking wasn't my think, neither was bars or clubs. I experimented a bit with pot but didn't like it much and it just made me sleepy, I couldn't get into sports teams. I used to play trading cards but gave it up when there was a clear mismatch with the way I played the game and everyone else. Same thing with video games. When it comes to politics I just listen to what's going on but I don't have strong opinions, and when it comes to art I just like looking at it but I don't know artists or histories. I don't use social media, just text and email, I never really needed more than that and even when I was briefly using them for a few months I was almost never on to the point that I wondered why I even had one. You make the error of thinking such a slim lifestyle as "missing out" which is the critical error people make and shows how biased you are in your thinking. It's the same problem I have with many people when they find out that I am happy with not much. I can say that because I have tried a lot but it didn't really add anything to my life and I wasn't missing out, in fact it was more for the pleasure of other people but not me. A quiet day in the woods or just by the beach, a walk around the town, or even a night in, that was all I wanted and needed. But as I said, that isn't enough for other people. I just boggle at all the things that some of the "nerds" I know play and own wondering "why" when I just have like two or three games I play at a time. Having been all over I can say I haven't really added anything new to my life that improved my horizons. Granted it was nice to have the experience sure, but that was it. Conversation isn't really an issue either since once I "warm up" I can be rather engaging and the like. The problem is after that when it comes to my life. Even as a kid I never asked for much more than I wanted and what I wanted wasn't much, unfortunately it made getting on with kids hard because it eventually boiled down to "that's all you do?" The way you make it sound is like it's another person's job to entertain you and that the more features they have the better, like some kind of toy. That's kind of low. But considering you assume I'm "missing out" it would explain much. I mean slowly I'm warming up to being alone. Even though loneliness hurts, sometimes I think it is better than having to put on a mask and pretend just to have friends or a date. So yes, based on all the data I have collected I can conclude that it's just my appearance people want, not me or my life.Machina (talk) 02:32, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Machina, I would normally only suggest a person look at the ideas of confirmation bias and self-fulfilling prophecy after a complaint like this. Normally I wouldn't go this deep on it, but you have been very honest and open and we've exchanged deep ideas before, here in  front of everyone, this shouldn't be a big deal.  If it is, cool, I get it.  If you have any clarifications that you need for the question, just ask. I would like you to also ask if you honestly feel justified in speaking like you are left out of or missing out on something while also claiming other people are ignorant of what you have.  I don't want it to be leading, it's my request for clarification because you've made a lot of statements here in this topic.  So here's the question:
 * Are you honestly feeling justified in being frustrated over having something more valuable to you than what other people have to offer, but simultaneously frustrated that what they have to offer you is less valuable than what you already have? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:11, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that companionship is something that has always been an issue for me because I want it but my life is “boring” to other people. I’ve always felt like I never had enough to have fiends or companions, not out of self deprivation but just because I never needed it. But I did want to share my life with other people, sadly though I never had enough for them. So I found myself doing things I didn’t like or enjoy just to have that company.Machina (talk) 17:13, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Existential loneliness isn't something that's really understood from the outside. And it doesn't act like normal loneliness. Best I can do is give you a quick wink, nod, and hope it gets better for you.  Dude, I hear you.  But if there's something small inside you that makes sense for wanting companionship, sometimes you have to entertain it a little bigger.  Not all the time.  But also not only when you want to.  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:11, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Machina, I feel like your assessment of things and of people is just so shallow, so dismissive of the experience of others, and you've missed the point. the limited (how limited though? when you say you don't need anything, what does that mean? how do you pass the time?) nature of your life is problematic not because it is 'deprived' but that it is distancing. it makes it difficult to relate to people, it makes it so you cannot understand people beyond their most overt motivations. you will not be able to connect.

it makes your assessment of what people want, what they want from you, what they find lacking in you, doubtful. its more a reflection of how you view yourself than the mind set of others. instead of realising it as just a surface impression from your own limited perspective, that a bit a of digging may reveal more about them, about you, you take it as all there is to know. you've shut down any chance there might be something more.

a bit of uncertainty here might make you more curious. might make your conversation seem like you are interested in what people have to say. it might make them interested in what you say.

you miss the point when you talk about hobbies and interests. its not about them. they are just a medium to enjoy the company. something to take the strain, so you don't have to be on the whole time, so you can relax with company. you don't need to share the same interests, just be curious to see if they have a particular interest, how important it is to them. its enough to see their passion, you need not share it. don't tell me you have no interests. you've spent the last year talking about buddhism. its a big difference between your interests being not someones cup of tea and having no interests at all. just show some passion. show you are alive.

this is all give and take, and its easier said than done, to know you are asking the right questions, to know when to listen. maybe you wont make a life long friend or a lover each time you meet someone new. at the very least you would have learnt something about another human being, another perspective not own that you can draw on, something you are in need of. we cannot know anything about anything in isolation. self knowledge is only possible in relation to others, and even then we usually a poor judge of ourselves.

don't make the mistake of viewing being comfortable as having all you need, or talk yourself into thinking you don't need something because it takes you out of that comfort zone. and just so you know, your 'observations' on the diversity of people and what they want do not make my own false. you should consider why it is everything you have 'observed' is seemly contrary to my own and everyone elses experience. its not like you are talking about something only you have experienced. your not even that experienced especially. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:44, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

John Brown
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcm5pPsvVrg&feature=youtu.be

Long live John Brown. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  08:41, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * polite applause...Ariel31459 (talk) 23:07, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * John Brown is a relic. The Border War had its second death in 2012.  Be very careful that you don't melt anyone's face off obtaining this shit.  It belongs in a museum.  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:40, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Clove & Lemon
If you have a Fly infestation in your apartment, do clove and/or lemon help to get rid of them? Asking for my mother. Tinribmancer (talk) 15:05, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No.  Not unless you're swatting them with the lemon.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:35, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If you spray the lemon juice on the fly that should prove pretty effective. There are a lot of strong-smelling plants and herbs that are supposed to get rid of flies (basil, lavender, camphor, mint, laurel, etc), although there doesn't seem to be any good evidence they're effective. There are also other hilarious folk remedies like hanging plastic bags/bottles full of water, or putting coins in a glass of water, but again no evidence, although it seems a valid home decoration choice. To be honest, cloves and lemons don't even seem to feature on lists of crappy folk remedies. As with most pests, the best solution is to hide or get rid of things they like to eat (with domestic flies that usually means rubbish and aging fruit), and if possible prevent their entry. If they're already inside, terminate with extreme prejudice, and that doesn't mean wafting clove oil in their general direction. --Annanoon (talk) 16:04, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, I've found someone discussing putting cloves in lemons, but pest control company Rentokil says "the smell will dissipate quite quickly so the benefit is likely to be minimal". They're not exactly unbiased but may know some things. Apples are also recommended, suggesting it's more the clove than the fruit. But still no actual evidence. --Annanoon (talk) 16:09, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I've heard of putting Vaseline on fruit, and then putting the vaseline covered fruit in a cup. The flies go for the fruit but get caught in the Vaseline and starve.  MirrorIrorriM (talk) 16:17, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Find some hungry fly-eating spiders ('variety 'throw-able out of window/door') or 'Venus flytraps and similar.' Anna Livia (talk) 17:27, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The best thing is to find the source. If possible, identify the type of flies and what they eat: fruit, feces, carrion, people (mosquitoes are flies)? There could be something dead nearby that could be tracked down & disposed of if carrion. Does it happen seasonally? Some flies swarm and mate seasonally and can come inside drafty houses to do this if there's sunlight streaming through; these are usually inoffensive flies. Bongolian (talk) 18:54, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * how do you keep flies from the kitchen? take a shit in the living room. AMassiveGay (talk) 02:13, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I have heard of fly trap similar to the Vaseline thing, but simpler. You get a largish glass jar, a funnel and some old fruit. Put the fruit in the jar and put the funnel on top, seling it with a bit of tape. The flies smell the fruit and fly into the jar. They navigate away from the fruit visually, but keep bonking into the glass (if you've ever seen a fly and a half open window you know it'll work. When the jar has a lot of flies in it pour boiling or soapy water into the jar and start again. Zipperback (talk) 05:01, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

PragerUrine
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3Wsp66QSyE Looks like Prager is at it again. 68.0.189.224 (talk) 23:08, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I see you're back to 9-year old toilet humor again. 00:27, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * So they're several degrees more mature than Prager? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 01:07, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * PragerU has NO degrees, so yes. 03:35, 20 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Interesting video; so should males be allowed to choose to go to a women's prison, or is Biden just humoring us for our votes? nobs''Die fascists! Make America Great! 03:27, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

How is it that schools in my area cannot afford up to date textbooks yet somehow have money for unnecessary construction each year
You go to question the teachers about it but they dodge the question. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:52, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Because the teachers don't make those calls. They could be just as upset, what do you mean by you go to question the teachers?  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 01:40, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Teachers themselves aren't the problem, though some of the union contracts (similar to police unions) are beyond stupid and definitely contribute to this (think the Rubber Rooms in New York City and some other urban areas). Even some things that aren't necessarily stupid (such as pension funds) have also been grossly mismanaged (as in Kentucky), as any actuary can tell you. The Blade of the Northern Lights (<font face="MS Mincho" color="black">話して下さい ) 02:50, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Infanticide in Canada
David and Colett Stephan in the image in this article are seen smiling as they leave the court, minutes after getting away with murdering their child. They killed him through their deranged attachment to "natural remedies" and sheer arrogance. Perpetually walking around with a smirk on his face, the man who tortured his child through medical neglect, goes around Canada selling the kind of products that inflicted unimaginable pain on his child. While the court may have been right following the law it's still a pretty sad day. You cannot murder your children if it can be proved that they would have survived if they got the attention a non-insane person would give their children. But you can torture the child as long as it's not conclusive that they didn't die from some other distracting possibility. In most of continental Europe they'd be in jail for years. I'd wonder if Trudeau had the guts to protect children from "natural ideology" abuse but the guy is too busy being shown for his own ideological fraud per his serial "black face" days. He will probably get away with his gross hypocrisy. He set back social-justice a decade or more, trivialising the persuit of respect and inclusivity by his own ugly behaviour. Shabi DOO  03:05, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Do Electrons Think?
I heard it in a discussion about quantum mechanics and didn't know the answer. The mentioned it was proven given Electron Theory or Chaos Theory or Light Theory, of which I know nothing about.Machina (talk) 03:16, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It they think, would they have a constitutional right to bear arms?Hubert (talk) 10:39, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * For that matter, if they were to abuse that right, could they be charged? Kencolt (talk) 17:16, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Electron Lives Matter 13:13, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I’m being serious, does anyone know enough about quantum physics to talk about it?Machina (talk) 19:34, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * For literally no definition of the word that applies to your day-to-day life do electrons "think". I'm sure there's a sufficiently distinct definition of the term from the human experience of consciousness where you could eventually fit them, but it wouldn't be intuitive.
 * Let's just use the dictionary definition of thinking. 1A from websters is "to form or have in the mind".  Okay well we're dealing with particles that lack a physical brain.  Nor any analogous structure.  Nor any sign of a greater psyche outside the thing itself to define as a mind.  What about 2A?  "to have as an intention".  The closest analog to having an intention I can think of electrons having is momentum.  Having opinions as in 3A is starting to get pretty far from reality.  I can't remember the last time an electron shared its views with me.  It's a silly question ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:19, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. When physicists talk about cognitive theory one should have about the same confidence in what they are saying as when psychologists talk about quantum mechanics.Ariel31459 (talk) 21:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2017/05/schrodinger-do-electrons-think.html?m=12600:387:9:3:0:0:0:9F (talk) 22:58, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Does light think when it follows ? Does water think when it flows downhill? --Annanoon (talk) 08:39, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

electrons don't think because they are sheeple AMassiveGay (talk)
 * This xkcd comic comes to mind. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  15:22, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

This site and leftists
Many of my fellow leftists I encounter on Discord tend to think that RationalWiki is still the ultralibby abode of so-called Reddit atheists it was back in its early days and my attempts to convey the fact that the Wiki has grown up and moved leftward over the years fall to deaf ears. I often have to explain to them that we're not Wikipedia, we only have a small group of mainspace editors and many articles from that era were and are complete shit. Other times I encounter leftists who do enjoy reading our site, and they have a differing opinion of us. My impression is that RW is actually pretty lefty, but that's probably because I`m an editor here myself. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  11:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Leftist in which context - the variety of USLefts is somewhat different to the BritLefts and other national/regional groupings. Anna Livia (talk) 12:07, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm a reasonably prolific editor here, and I definitely wouldn't call myself a leftist. 13:12, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It's at the very least centre-left, the site's makeup here is comprised of many different groupings, but there are definitely many bonafide leftists here. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  14:25, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've observed that as well. 14:31, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I myself am a leftist, so you can count me as one of them as well. I just think the people who call us "too liberal" don't really know much about the site, the leftists I've talked to who read the site in depth are of a differing opinion. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  14:34, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm a liberal, not a leftist. But I am also not a prolific editor only a very specific editor of one page.RipCityLiberal (talk) 15:30, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You're still center-left. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  17:02, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Authoritarian and/or fundamentalist religion is dominating "right wing politics" in much of the Western world right now, two things that this Wiki is against in mission. In addition, the Wiki is (for good reason, due to the crankery, pseudoscience, and authoritarian tactics involved) on the other side of certain elements of the Internet (eg the MRA movement, Gamergate)... that, while not explicitly "right wing" per se, fit neatly with the white male identity politics that also dominates "right wing politics" in the Western world. So I don't think any sort of "left" bias is a surprise, given that the more sober intellectual side of Western conservatism is in hiding right now. But IMHO the Wiki bias is not a "left" bias that embraces authoritarian left politics (eg communism) or "moonbattery". Soundwave106 (talk) 17:12, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It has sometimes been asked "when does the left go too far?" This is, perhaps, just asking "what does 'far left' mean?"  Is there more than one kind of far left?  I want to ask that question in light of the fact that many of us want to be called "center left."  So, this requires one to say what is too extreme on the left. Ariel31459 (talk) 21:30, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Being a moonbat or a communist is Far-Left. Just look up any political party on WP that is Far-Left, then check their ideologies. Most of them will have "Communism", "Marxism", "Marxist-Leninism", "Castroism" & anything with -ism in it that smell like commies. And moonbatting or Hippie/hipstershit. Tinribmancer (talk) 23:23, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

What does "leftist" even mean anymore? I've seen it blanket applied to the left-wing spectrum so often that I've come to see it as a meaningless term, I don't even know if it accurately describes me. 23:00, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I feel like leftist is between liberal and socialist, more than between socialist and communist.RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:48, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I`m communist, so I definitely qualify. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  06:36, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Liberals left? Most liberal parties in the EU are centre-right or between centre & centre-right and love to protect the rich, big companies and raise taxes. Are they in America left-wing, then? Tinribmancer (talk) 08:08, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, perhaps, but do you think that the general population wants that? Liberals, in that sense, is just a class of political idiots? Really?Ariel31459 (talk) 02:07, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Where did I say that they're idiots? Tinribmancer (talk) 09:13, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * "Liberal" is referred to left-wing belief in the U.S.. It can be a confusing label if it's in different contexts. 01:03, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * "Liberal' became such a snarl word in the USA that the liberals took to calling themselves 'progressives'. Actual leftism is kind of scary because it has gotten mixed up with the sort of Moral Endeavor I always associated with the militant right I grew up with.  Busybodies who want to enact a holiness code on their neighbors, in other words.  I definitely am not on the same page with all that claims the 'feminist' label, believe in the presumption of innocence and in limiting the prosecutorial power of government, and the Thanosian hard greens frighten the shit out of me. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 22:40, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

How come there are "leftists" but not "rightists"? What would the equivalent word be?Hubert (talk) 16:27, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * And I'm wrong. A Google search turns up quite a few references to "rightists". Though I can't say it's a word I've come across often - or ever. Interestingly, my initial impression is that when "rightists" are spoken about it's in contrast to "leftists" - but when "leftists" are referred to, it's often "leftist" views which are being spoken about.  Obviously another example of the conspiracy to marginalise the right by social media and the internet.Hubert (talk) 17:21, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * these are non specific terms to lump differing groups together for ease, or blaming all for one groups ills or just meant in general without reference to specific policy. it might be neutral, it might be meant as vague disagreeablness, it might imply this is the sworn enemy. seems less of a self descriptor but could imply a sense of unity. i like the vagueness. i describing my leanings as generally to the left of things why be more specific? i'd need an opinion on policy that i have no interest in or will never be relevant anytime. any differences in decisions i'm likely to be asked to make will likely be the same whatever label i give to my ideology when i am compelled to explain just mean by liberal anrcho social collecytivistism means, but will probs vote labour and where policies differ requires unlikely events to ever matter. im not running for office. if i have an opinion on something that'll tell you more than what a Trotsky meninist anarcho democratic monarchist partytline might be.
 * if i was for something generally dreadful, Nazi kind of dreadful, you'd probably expect a more definite and clear affiliation, or my actions would be a dead give away.
 * i also have a very low opinion for support for causes so unlikely and distant, that only practical action you can take in that name is to vote for things that would actively make things, so the people will rise up and call for your hobby horse. if that outcome will never pass you are just voting to making things worse (i am thinking of elements in labour supporting Brexit because its too right wing for them, so they force the uk where the right wing will be unbound. a current example) AMassiveGay (talk) 02:11, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I was told to contribute, and hey Oxy Cosmic Explorer (talk) 08:00, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey, Cosmic. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  11:30, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Today is the day
It's time to raid Area 51 and get them aliens 14:42, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Also the anniversary of the Pope losing Rome to the King of Italy. As an Italian (caricature), doesn't that make you prouder? CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 14:59, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually the aliens are elsewhere and Area 51 is a tactical diversion. Anna Livia (talk) 15:53, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

75 people arrested, it seems... Tinribmancer (talk) 07:59, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Um... nope, only five at this writing... one for public urination. the others for actual trespassing.  Most people are just hanging about at the gates, and doing music. Kencolt (talk) 16:21, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Biggest flop of the century. No alien excrement was discovered on the premises. 68.0.189.224 (talk) 04:28, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I can't believe everyone has fallen for this "nothing happened", "only five arrests" bullshit. Can't you see that that's what they want to you believe!Hubert (talk) 18:16, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Plus, the REAL research happens at Area 52, Sector B7F. Tinribmancer (talk) 21:37, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

De Blasio drops out
The election page needs to be updated. Just read that he dropped out: https://twitter.com/BilldeBlasio/status/1175014926093639685 Tinribmancer (talk) 15:17, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting us know. It has been updated. RoninMacbeth (talk) 16:17, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Minimum article size
Hi my article was just deleted for being "hopelessly tiny stub" and "Nazi". It was about the concept of inclusivity in modern academia. It was one hundred words. What constitutes a stub? Also is a "Nazi" article anything Nazis would agree with? Such as drinking sufficient water? How do we know when something is "Nazi"? The inclusivity article was largely about cheap emotive sophomoric rhetoric in the place of academic rigor and the truth. Is that "Nazi"? Thanks in advance. Shystream (talk) 16:39, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Mike. Bye Mike. Tinribmancer (talk) 16:56, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 100 words, sure, but it was one paragraph long and had no stub template whatsoever. The page itself seems to paint inclusivity as being some kind of negative thing or the latest in outrage culture sounds suspiciously similar to typical Nazi ideals. If you are indeed editing in good faith and are not some kind of troll, then I'd suggest you remake the article again on your sandbox page so it may be reviewed and then moved to proper article space. 17:02, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Organizing the candidate dropouts on the election nomination pages
So, I noticed that there seems to be no real order to how we list the candidates who've dropped out of the 2020 Dem. nomination article (i.e. alphabetical, date entered the race, date left the race, etc). I was considering re-ordering it based on the date the candidate dropped out, however, I wasn't sure if it'd be better to go 'first out at the top of the list, latest out at the botttom' or 'latest out at the top of the list, first out at the bottom'. Thoughts?--NavigatorBR(Talk) - 22:27, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it should be the other way, first out at the top, latest at the bottom. RoninMacbeth (talk) 22:30, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 2016 Republican Party presidential nomination and 2016 Democratic Party presidential nomination seem to use that strange and arbitrary arrangement known as alphabetical order. But consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, apparently. --Annanoon (talk) 08:45, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll go change it to alphabetical.--NavigatorBR(Talk) - 02:01, 24 September 2019 (UTC)