RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive320

Board of trustees voting
Shouldn't someone have opened up the voting booth 2 days ago? Bongolian (talk) 19:50, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah right, . — Oxyaena Harass  02:23, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * yuh 07:19, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Is it even a RationalWiki election if it doesn't get delayed? --RWRW (talk) 13:18, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

rmf election voting
isn't that supposed to happen? 08:14, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I just created an announcement on the foundation webpage that the voting will be held sometime in the near but indeterminate future soon, assuming anyone actually reads the foundation website that is, but still just to keep it safe lol I did. — Oxyaena Harass  08:48, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Why the delay? 204.86.170.187 (talk) 13:53, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Nobody really wants the job? I have heard of losing an election...Ariel31459 (talk) 23:56, 11 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Because I literally completely forgot about switching it on! Doing so now ... - David Gerard (talk) 10:35, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Epic. :) 15:08, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Why I like coming up with thought experiments
For me anyways, it stimulates critical thinking. Many ones that I come up with are science oriented and I like to carefully think of implications of what I come up with. Again, just me. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 15:10, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * What if you could know for sure that a god exists, but you couldn't explain how or why? Wait, that's a thing already.  You got anything?  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

THAWTZ AND PUHRAYORES
Just checked Trump's Twitter. He shows concern for some recent victims. And people often bash him. He is not a bad man. He may be flawed but he does care for his fellow men. 2600:1:F142:4F05:828B:1FF6:B4A9:2494 (talk) 17:27, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Which, I assume, is why thousands of migrant children are locked up in overcrowded detention centers on the border without legal representation. Because he cares. RoninMacbeth (talk) 17:29, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * He calls the shooting both tragic and cowardly. He plainly says so on his Twitter. He indeed cares about justice. 2600:1:F142:4F05:828B:1FF6:B4A9:2494 (talk) 17:32, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sure it's just a coincidence that his previous acts have given him bad press during an ELECTION CYCLE. Definitely a coincidence. 17:34, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You can read yourself.[] 2600:1:F142:4F05:828B:1FF6:B4A9:2494 (talk) 17:36, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Let me be blunt. He's lying through his teeth. Fuck him, and fuck you. Neither of you shits care about the immigrants, you never did and you never will. His actions make his platitudes into hollow mockeries. Fix conditions or shut up. 17:38, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * he literally said "thoughts and prayers" which in these days is a punchline for inept politicians who do nothing to curb gun crimes. 17:45, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This guy again? Fuck off with your sealioning. — Oxyaena Harass  17:47, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * lets be fair, it took him literal seconds to tweet literal nothingness. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:50, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll take it further and say none of these shits care about humanity as long as they get to "own the liberals". OMG a lying grifter said something on Twitter, now we should believe him! 18:54, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Damn. Why didn't the Democrats, between 2009 - 2011, when they had a veto proof Congress, do something about gun control? Instead they frittered the time away with a fruitless piece of shit legislation called Obamacare that rest on the ash heap of history now. They really do care, don't they? nobsI'm all yea'res 19:31, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That was like almost a decade ago, not to mention the stonewalling Republicans (Obamacare had a lot of problem passing too, didn't it?). They also got flak and disappointment from their base too for not doing enough. It's deflection but it's trite and dishonest. 19:33, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Rob, I hope if you ever suffer severe injury that you don't have enough coverage. I really want you to understand the suffering people like me live under. A few months ago I fell in the shower and had to go to the E.R., and without the ACA the bills for the visit and treatment for my bruised ribs would have bankrupted me. I hope medical bills cost you everything, you piece of shit. Oh, and if those bills are from a mass shooting, I'll send my "thoughts and prayers", and nothing else. 19:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Funny thing, Mitch Bitch McConnell apparently fell in his home and broke his shoulder. Lucky for him that he's rich. And too bad for the rest of us. 22:58, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * should have broke a more vital bone tbh 02:52, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That was a pretty good tweet denouncing a mass shooting, but I'm not sure it's going to make the top 10 list of Trump tweets denouncing a mass shooting by the time Trump leave office. He has improved with practice though. Zipperback (talk) 08:22, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

P.R.
And now the morons are obsessing over this tweet like it's special. It's not. Literally every politician including Trump posts these vapid public statements as part of their PR campaigns, every time there's a shooting. This is pathetic. It's half-assed whitewashing for the sake of optics. 19:21, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Families are in mourning and you call condolences "vapid"? You're sick. nobsI'm all yea'res 16:17, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * All they ever do is send their "thoughts and prayers," while never doing anything to stop these violent massacres. Why? — Oxyaena Harass  16:21, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know; perhaps they are not totalitarian fascists who want to seize everybody's rights. nobsI'm all yea'res 16:33, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I remember when you tried Rob. Poor Show. Revolverman (talk) 16:53, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * They. Don't. Care. If any of politician cared, they would push legislation through that would end this crap. None of them do, therefore none of them care. To hell with every dipshit that sends thoughts and prayers. If they get hurt, pray for them, and do nothing else. Because they would do the same for us. Results, or guilt through inaction. No more compromise. 16:56, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No more compromise? What are you going to do? Get an AR-7 and go to Walmart where, in the words of Peter Strzok, people reek of Donald Trump? just like the other two registered Democrats did this past weekend? nobsI'm all yea'res 17:57, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Look at the bright side. At least the El Paso and Dayton shooters get to continue voting Democrat if Bernie Sanders gets his way. nobsI'm all yea'res 18:04, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You think the El Paso shooter was a leftist? LMAO. Also, Nobs, nobody's taking your guns away, that's a myth, grow up. — Oxyaena Harass  18:21, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * How many rightwingers claim immigration is hampering implementation of a universal basic income and universal healthcare? nobsI'm all yea'res 18:26, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Focus, Nobs, stay on topic. — Oxyaena Harass  10:30, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

"Look at the bright side. At least the El Paso and Dayton shooters get to continue voting Democrat if Bernie Sanders gets his way."
 * Yeah why do we tolerate you here again? 18:57, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * i don't give a shit what this individual's political affiliations are. he murdered people, he was part of a rotten system that enabled it, and that system needs to be fixed by getting rid of terrible politicians who empower them. that includes cracking down on the nra and gop, those who feed them extremely harmful lies and propaganda to begin with. 19:03, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, right-wing ideology is a common component of the terrorism we're seeing around the world. It'll be useful to pay attention to that pattern as well as learning the system. 19:04, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Rob. Stop lying, or I'll show you what censorship looks like. Both shooters openly supported Trump, both cited right wing talking points as their motives. Now, apologise and cease lying. 19:08, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll be fair -- the Dayton Ohio shooter has been speculated as being radical leftist by heavy.com and this site isn't *completely* on my "bullshit website" radar. However, it is not anything official -- sometimes this sort of speculation is terribly wrong. I see few other sources with profiles at this time so I'll await confirmation. Calling the El Paso shooter leftist just reflects a love of garbage conservative media like The Gateway Pundit, which attempted to make the El Paso shooter a Democrat by pointing at a highly editable profile site or something. Anyone who has read the manifesto knows that the shooter hated all politicians, but hated on Hispanics much more. White nationalism has *never* been considered a liberal position. Soundwave106 (talk) 20:03, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * blaming their political leanings doesn't really solve any problems, though. not even a grand majority of the stupidest hardcore conservatives want to outright kill people to begin with. i do agree that the extremist mindset is poisonous but i feel like it's far more productive to crack down the digital self-harm sites like 8chan or reform our healthcare system so it's not outright garbage so we could prevent something like the aurora shooting from happening, which was perpetrated by someone who didn't have access to adequate mental care. 19:10, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Read a few free republic threads sometime, it will cure you of any belief that republicans don't want to murder you. When they think the world isn't watching, they get worse.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:29, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * i mean, i do think the gop actively hates people that's why i want to vote them all out of office so they stop spreading lies, distortions, hateful rhetoric, and all of that other bullshit that insiduously empowers people like the terrorists who engage in this shit. the sooner trump stops being president and the sooner mockba mitch gets booted, the better for all of humanity 19:36, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That's only treating the symptoms. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:53, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This is the site, correct? My eyes hurt a lot. Is it supposed to look like clown garish? 20:34, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * whoever designed the free republic's web design needs to plunge their eyes into a hot cast-iron pan, because that's how i felt when i saw their main page. 21:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * They solicit their users for hundreds of thousands of dollars per year in "hosting costs" too. But yes, that's the site.  I bet the furthest you can get into a thread without someone suggesting death to liberals is probably 2 pages.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 01:15, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Hahaha I went into the Trump demanding death penalty for shooters topic and some idiot suggested the death penalty for antifa members, on the first page, 13th post.
 * .....I can't navigate this bloody thing. I fucking hate going on this site. Even something shitty like Kiwi Farms knows how a fucking forum works. 01:34, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't go very far in and I saw these lovely quotes
 * Regarding a Jewish person that provides abortions and circumcisions, which are driven by her Jewish values.
 * "All I have to say is: Reading this idiocy helped me understand why this mutant’s ancestors were so complacent while they were herded into boxcars." "Is that a man in drag?"
 * On Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) slamming Ivanka Trump by saying that "Your prayers aren't working. Try checking your dad on his tweets. 251 mass shootings in the U.S. in 216 days. He incites violence every day w/ his hate agenda & racism. More people are dying b/c he fails to fight white supremacist terrorists."
 * "If only Rashita had volunteered to take the place of the victims......."
 * "Hate Speech. She needs a SWAT intervention before she goes into mass killer mode."
 * Responding to "What a nasty human being Tlaib is.": "Generations of inbreeding..."
 * "The deep state is so obvious. It’s probably their biggest weakness. Stage a couple false flags, then use it to attack all the liberties outlined in our Constitution." - yeah now they're going into conspiracy mode regarding the recent mass shooting and the call for gun control.
 * 01:49, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

BAI THE WAY
It's too bad it happened but THINK ABOUT ME and the journalists are scum and promote fake news and divide our people but yknow mexicans are still rapists and muslims are still terrorists and black people are just violent angry gorillas and trans people are still deformed monsters that want to rape people in bathrooms and women are just whores hey why are you shouting back at me, stop dividing our country. 21:52, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Mass shootings
Several of them now within a short period of time, and these are only the ones that make the international news.

When will attitudes change? Anna Livia (talk) 22:24, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * When someone shoots up the NRA. 22:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The NRA already conveniently has a circular firing squad. Bongolian (talk) 22:53, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * NRA will just blame it on hopscotch or something. 23:18, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Now that I think about it, it's a little concerning that you like video games so much. Fox News told me that video games turn people into crazies, and here you are so proud of them! Your "Mario" character brutally smashes helpless living creatures under his shoes! And he hits them with hammers and throws fire at them! This is supposed to be for kids? What is it teaching them? To disobey God? To be violent towards God's creatures? I think America's moral decay can be traced right back here. You should be ashamed of yourself, and you should set aside your "Mario" and rediscover God's love through prayer. 23:38, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Attitudes are changing, slowly as usual, but we'll see if the accelerating rate of mass shootings changes things. LOL at Texas Lt. Governor DuceMoosolini. Should I direct this prayer at Christian Jesus or Texas Republican Jesus? :) Soundwave106 (talk) 12:42, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Luigi died on the cross for our sins. There's even photographic evidence, and besides, the FSM said so and were you there? 16:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The New York Post has a very strong anti-weapon message on their front page today. The Post has a history of Right-leaning bias so this is pretty huge, and hopefully a sign that attitudes are shifting. A big part of it is which direction Donnie tries to spin it, though. And it doesn't look good so far. How long until he cancels the Post? TheUnderOver (talk) 12:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Jesus, everyone knows video games were invented by DARPA to recruit and train for Special Forces. What else is new? nobsI'm all yea'res 16:14, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That people are blaming video games on the swath of society's ills: the onslaught of Super Mario Odyssey for suspected demonic possession of Donald Trump, Wipeout for general road rage, and Mario Party for the war on drugs. 16:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Video games are available in many countries and there are few massacres (even allowing for 'terrorism related incidents').
 * They kill children and nothing is done, the people who commit mass murder are not 'migrants and other verbally abused persons', and it seems to be a modern phenomenon, not gang or gangster related, and nobody says 'not in my name.'
 * Will anything be done? Anna Livia (talk) 18:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Now I don't understand this: people claim Trump tweets inspire shooters. The when the assertion is made that video games inspire shooters, suddenly the argument become "each individual is responsible for their own actions." Discuss. nobsI'm all yea'res 18:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You see, video games promote the message that Mexicans are rapists. It's clearly spelled out in Dead Space. Also, you notice after the release Paper Mario: Color Splash, which promoted emboldening racists, the amount of hate-crime incidents rose. You also hear in the Unite the Right rally how much people appreciated Destiny 2 and then reenacted the game by running over a woman. You also wouldn't believe how much children are locked in cages when Burnout Paradise Remastered said it's necessary for job protection. 18:50, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey shithead, Trump reinforces a sense of entitlement among young white men that they are under constant assault by the MSM, by Democrats, by immigrants and people of color. His use of language like; vermin, infested, invasion dehumanizes humans which makes it easier for these people to justify violence against them. The places where violence against minority groups is where those in power encourage similar dehumanization (Rohyinga Muslims in Myanmar, Uighur Muslims in China, Christians in Iraq). Video games, and more specifically video games featuring violence with guns, with this lone exception, are part of a fantasy, with a clear separation between real life and the video game in almost all people except the most mentally challenged. The connection between video games and violence has been researched ever since Columbine, and no connection has been reached. Unlike connections between racial resentment, gun ownership, and social isolation, which are frequently connected to violence.
 * In conclusion, go fuck yourself.RipCityLiberal (talk) 18:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Video games are becoming more leftist SJW pandery. Also, video games are responsible for right-wing terrorism by young white men (and white men only). 19:00, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * guys are you forgetting that many people these days go to a best buy to pick up a copy of skyrim, only to use its sharp cd edges to throw them at people oddjob style? i think it's the video games causing it. 19:05, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Best Buy? CDs? Oddjob? You mean those were things back then!? 19:07, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * yeah, it's a millennial thing. casually walk into a school then hack elementary school kid's limbs off with a copy of super mario world bros odyssey 19:24, 5 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Not getting involved in the whole guns rights in the US thingy, it's futile online. But just a simple question. Considering the size of the US Population, is the NRA the only association for weapons owners? Are there others and are they just as mental as the NRA? Could there me a somewhat reasonable group? Or, and I shudder to ask, even more insane? Cardinal Chang (talk) 23:15, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * There are other groups, some sane-ish, most not. The ting is, even the sane ones seem to forget that they're talking about a tool of death and pain. Guns kill people, that's literally the sole reason they were invented. If someone is too stupid to understand that, they're too stupid to own guns. 23:19, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * There are only an estimated 5 million NRA members, far less members than the amount of gun owners, which hovers around 30-40% of all households based on surveys. Guns are also used in recreational hunting, marksmanship, and property protection (not necessarily Big Scary City NRA talking point stuff, I'm thinking varmint management). There are some advocacy groups in the recreational fields, but they tend to be more widely differing in opinion and much smaller in influence. Overall, I would infer that there is a large portion of gun owners that aren't in any association at all. However I imagine the 3% of Americans that own half of all guns now are by and large NRA members, or, if not, even further down the paranoid style crazy train. (Though it is noted that a few *left wing* militia type groups have popped up recently like Redneck Revolt, so it's not like even that space is completely single minded these days.)Soundwave106 (talk) 14:36, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * A couple of things:
 * If these shooters were Muslim (or from South East Asia), the discussion from 2A people would be about the crisis of immigration and christian values
 * If these shooters were black, the discussion would be about why blacks are inherently more violent
 * If there was a website that had inspired three ISIS attacks in the US, it would be shut down, and black vans would be out picking users up
 * This hypocrisy is a critical issue. As well guns are tools, and tools require skill and expertise to use. Tools that are particularly dangerous (like cars and trucks), require extra training as well as certain medical standards. Why we don't require that for tools that have the power to kill people so quickly and with such little effort is astounding. -RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:53, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Anyone who thinks it is easier to acquire a gun than a car or truck in the US is ignorant of US law. Unless you are financing it (which requires a credit check, which still isn't really the same), there's no background check required to buy a car. 204.86.170.187 (talk) 13:47, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey BON did I say any fucking thing about a background check? No I didn't. But to drive a car, you need to exhibit ability to get a license, and then insurance to operate a vehicle. If you want to add a credential, say for a motorcycle, you need to do it again for a motorcycle. To drive a commercial motor vehicle or CMV (Tractor-Truck and Trailer for the layman) you need to exhibit the ability to operate the vehicle, get a medical card that indicates you are healthy enough to operate a CMV, which needs to be updated a minimum of once every two years, and be subject to a random drug and alcohol test. Take a guess as to who has the fewest fatal accidents on the road? It's the one that has the most requirements to operate.RipCityLiberal (talk) 15:22, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, you have to do these things to get a license to drive a car, however there are some states in which one doesn't even need a driver's license to buy a car. You really don't have to even have a tag on a car, you just can't drive it on the public roadway without a tag. Likewise, some states require gun owners to register their guns, and go through training to get the proper license to own or carry a gun. People as young as 15 can drive a car and bring it to school, whereas the left doesn't want anyone under 21 to have a gun. While cars and guns are both tools capable of killing people, it is generally more difficult to obtain a gun than it is a car, and regardless of whatever you may think, there are a lot more restrictions on guns than motor vehicles. CCSBON (talk) 21:36, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I stopped taking you serious when you said "whereas the left doesn't want anyone under 21 to have a gun." Most of the U.S. "left" (read centrists) isn't that ballsy. Most of them want the senseless killings to stop, and so do a good chunk of gun owners. Meanwhile, I do want to take your guns, all of them. Because people like you are too stupid to be trusted with implements of death and pain. 21:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * So what they said was correct when applied to people like you proclaiming they want to take people's guns away, but because US politicians tend to cater to a wide array of voters you arbitrarily decide not to take someone seriously because you decide what their words must mean? *spinning head emoji* 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:BD5D:3C9F:496E:B17 (talk) 22:20, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm a minority with zero power and influence, you over-entitled snot nosed brat. Fuck it!!. 22:26, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This is what guns do And this They aren't fucking rights, they're luxuries you dipshits abuse. GET THE EVERLOVING FUCK OVER IT!!!! MY RIGHT TO LEAVE MY HOUSE WITHOUT FEARING FOR MY MOTHERFUCKING OVERRIDE YOUR RIGHT TO A KILLING MACHINE!!! YOU GOY THAT YOU ENTITLED SELF CENTORED JACKASS?!?!?!!? FUCK YOU!!! I HAVE FUCKING RIGHT TO PUBLIC MOTHERFUCKING SAFETY!!! I HAVE FUCKING RIGHT TO NOT WORRY ABOUT DYING EVERY SINGLE DAY!!! I HAVE A FUCKING RIGHT TO FUCKING EMOTIONAL STABILITY!!!! YOU GASLIGHTING FUCKSHIT!!!! FUCK YOUR GUNS!!!! FUCK ALL GUNS!!! NOW DO YOU FUCKING GET IT OR DOES YOUR FUCKING FAMILY NEED TO BE NEXT? OR MINE? OR SOME OTHER 6 YEAR OLD KID?!?! HUH?!?!? DO WE ALL NEED TO DIE BEFORE YOU FUCKING GET IT?!?!?! GUNS KILL PEOPLE, THAT LITTERLALLY WHAT THEY EXIST FOR!!! 22:35, 8 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Cars are really effective in hunting deer. 22:13, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * They are, actually. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:BD5D:3C9F:496E:B17 (talk) 22:20, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Cars are great for mutilating targets and being concealed inside handbags too. Too many times there was someone who walked into a Walmart, took out a car, and then people died. 22:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Car crashes are a pretty common occurrence. But indeed I haven't seen any concealed toy cars run people over inside a Walmart. I think I saw one attack a cat on Cream Heroes once though. Probably LuLu. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:BD5D:3C9F:496E:B17 (talk) 23:11, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * My point is that cars are a flawed analogy but I do suppose you're trying to debate on a technicality on how guns are easier to get than cars. By the way, I really don't think kids should have guns either. I think no one should in an ideal world. But that's my principle. 00:10, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * My point is that more people should watch cute cat videos. As to other BoN's point, I dunno. But it's an interesting comparison to make at least. Legally one is a privilege while the other is a right, though both are often substantially legislated (with variation across states) and procuring and operating either one through normal means is more complicated than "you can walk into a store and buy one" would imply. At the same time both are pretty easy to steal. As to (legit) reasons for people to have these potentially deadly items, guns (protecting family) seem to have more going for them than cars (getting somewhere faster). Of course, if criminals didn't have guns or other lethal weaponry then using deadly force in defense quickly becomes untenable, and less-lethal methods of protection exist. An ideal world where no one can threaten each other with deadly force sounds great, but the question is how to get there realistically. Particularly, as long as police militarization is going on and officers are basically immune from legal consequences of murdering people, I don't see how mass confiscation of guns can be a viable 'solution'. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:BD5D:3C9F:496E:B17 (talk) 13:15, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, found it. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:BD5D:3C9F:496E:B17 (talk) 13:20, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Tell me, what kind(s) of gun(s) do you expect to defend yourself with? In my opinion, anything over twelve rounds and you aren't packing for defense, you're trying to emulate an action movie. The is my personal choice for self defense. If I need more than that I either can't aim worth a shit or I'm dead anyway.  14:26, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, none, since I don't own any. Restricting rounds is fine with me, but any arbitrary line that may be drawn is going to dissatisfy people on both sides. Also while I think there's a lot of sense to some gun control proposals, they don't treat the disease of mass shootings, they only restrain the symptoms. So ultimately something in American culture is going to need to change for the better, but I don't see politicians making that happen. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:BD5D:3C9F:496E:B17 (talk) 17:13, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

(reset) Seeing as how I made the comparison, I feel the need to correct these idiots. Ya'll are comparing owning a car to owning a gun, which is like comparing apples and a gun. Yes car ownership doesn't necessarily require a license, and yes car fatalities are generally more common the homicides (but not gun deaths total). My comparison is to owning a firearm, designed to kill the maximum amount of people, and the vehicle that has the capacity to kill the most amount of people, a Commercial Motor Vehicle (or lorry to the rest of the world). When a sixteen wheeler loses control, it is far more destructive than a car, which is why it is common for terrorists to use. In the United States, and mirrored around the world, there is a much higher standard to own and operate these vehicles. Drivers are subject to random drug and alcohol testing, they are required to get another credential on their license, and they are required to meet certain health standards at least once every two years. If a handgun, like say a sedan, can be used to cause "minimal damage", then a semi-automatic rifle, like a CMV, which can be used to cause maximum damage, how is it unreasonable to believe that a weapon like that requires additional standards to own.RipCityLiberal (talk) 17:05, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Saying guns are more useful than cars by vastly overstating that guns "protect" and understating that cars merely transport is such a flawed argument. Guns do not protect. Guns carry huge risks that outweigh benefits. Guns increase rates of completed suicides. Guns end family conflicts. Guns hinder police efforts. Guns can be stolen. Little children can die from mishandling guns. Guns increase cockiness and recklessness of people who are mistakenly led to believe that are more protected. Guns confuse law enforcement in maas shootings. Guns can not only instigate the shootings but shooters themselves could use guns from the "good guys" they shoot or have fled. Cars on the other hand are practically required to reasonably commute in many jobs. Cars are a massive service to humanity aiding in a fundamental human need being efficient transportation. Guns were maybe useful for hunting back in the days but these aren't those days. Guns have no place in society outside maybe the law enforcement (given circumstances) and military. I think gun control isn't a panacea but it's a good first step and we've already seen the writing on the wall: there has been correlations everywhere else in the world that less people have died from gun crime and knives just aren't efficient at all compared to guns. 17:39, 9 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Saying that "Guns don't protect" is blatantly false.http://memepoliceman.com/list-of-mass-shootings-stopped-by-armed-civilians/ It's a trend amongst mass shooters to target people that are unlikely to shoot back. That is why the shooter in Aurora chose the movie theater that didn't allow concealed carry versus the movie theater down the street that did. Some of the survivors of that shooting said that they were close enough that the shooter's spent brass struck them. That means that they were definitely close enough to shoot him in the head. But since nobody was carrying, they became fish in a barrel as soon as an armed psycho showed up. I doubt that repealing the Second Amendment will end gun violence in America any more than Prohibition ended alcohol consumption or Tricky Dick's War on Drugs ended the illegal drug trade, especially since ghost guns and 3D printed guns are becoming more readily available all the time. Disarming law-abiding citizens doesn't make them safer, it just makes them easier prey for psychopaths and totalitarians.

"That rifle hanging on the wall of the working class flat or labourer’s cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there." -- George Orwell Richard Pickman (talk) 19:28, 12 August 2019 (UTC)Richard Pickman


 * When used correctly, drugs/alcohol result in happiness and/or relaxation. When used correctly, guns result in death. When done correctly, murder results in death. When done correctly, rape results in suffering and/or death. Two of these have been outlawed for most of modern history, yet they still occur. So, by your logic, we should decriminalize rape and murder, and that'll decrease the amount of rape and murder, right? Hmm? 19:59, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I was speaking of "reasons" more in the sense of stated justifications for society to allow these tools with substantive amounts of casualties tied to them to nonetheless be legally available to most of the population. I don't see anything wrong with acknowledging that protecting loved ones is a more noble rationale than wanting more efficient transportation. You don't need to convince me btw that guns fulfil their stated purpose very imperfectly. I subscribe to ultimately doing away with both (lethal) guns and cars. After all, people currently depending on something for however justified a reason doesn't mean it's ultimately desirable (the climate says hi). 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:BD5D:3C9F:496E:B17 (talk) 19:13, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem unreasonable at all, but a 2A-defender would rightly note that there's a lot of variation when it comes to semi-automatic weapons. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:BD5D:3C9F:496E:B17 (talk) 19:30, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I see. I thought you were making that statement out of your own opinion rather than trying to show a perspective of people that want guns. I think we really need to change those attitudes that we need guns (I can't say we don't need cars though; I can't go anywhere without a car because suburbs, no afforable high speed rail in the state, etc.), however, and I feel explaining why those attitudes, while a noble rationale, is misguided. I don't know if I'm preaching to a choir, but if I get to make anyone stop and think about the self-defense rationale, then that'll be good. 19:33, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know what all of this yap about comparing regulations of cars vs. tractor trailers to handguns vs. machine guns is all about since there's already way more restrictions on purchasing and owning an AK-47 than owning a 22, for example. 71.215.128.66 (talk) 21:30, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Cause an AK-47 is an automatic weapon, which is still illegal. But purchasing a semi-auto long gun is easier than owning a handgun. A lot of states require waiting periods and have age restrictions on handguns, but not on long guns.RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:01, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Before anyone makes some bullshit argument, I'd like to augment this by saying a semi-auto single shot that sits in your shoulder is still way easier to pull the trigger on quickly and accurately than a pistol. I know a rural guy with a bump stock. It doesn't take long to figure out how to fire that like an auto.  He's not a murderer, he just has fun with guns.  I'll admit, the time one time I had fun with guns warmed me up to owning a gun.  It was all handguns and single shot ARs and my absolute favorite was a Mosin that a vet sniper brought.  But we were on a farm, we were shooting cinderblocks in front of a hill, I got bit by the first Mosin kick and my hand bled over it.  After that, I buckled down, drove the next 4 rounds pretty close to where I wanted.  Shooting guns is fun.  Vet swore he just bought it off the internet, arrived in a bag, still covered in the same grease the Russians used to pack it in.  Said the ammo was the expensive part.
 * Now, I'd like to make this argument again, because I have made it before. I do not like guns out and about, and I think adding a gun to a situation only serves to escalate it.  I also do not trust people, police included, so again, having guns out and about is not a good move.  But, if Americans could retain ownership of their handguns, but require rifles to be kept at a gun club, would that help?  I mean, maybe go as far as Kansas does on liquor, where anything higher than 3.2 has to be purchased at a sponsored store.  Or Colorado on weed, where marijuana has to be purchased at a sponsored store.  These are both examples of highly regulated and really convenient stores, it's just that you can't walk in to either drunk or stoned.  It's a little different with my suggestion (which is not an original), but maybe a rifle needs to be purchased at a sponsored store, and kept at that store until you prove you are going sport shooting with it.  America already has gun clubs, and recently enough to be relevant a dude shot himself at a gun club here.  It's disheartening, but I can't part the God damned seas, I can recognize good ideas.  Show me your papers for your gun isn't exactly the same as Show me your papers for your citizenship, right?  Gun club, won't fix suicide.  Gun club, might help against mass murder.  One fucking step at a time. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:45, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I would just like to say, as I do when ever the topic of assault rifle bans or ammo clip restrictions come up, that at virginia tech 32 people were killed with only a couple of hand guns. I feel like the pro gun control crowd play in to the gun lobbies hand. the starting point is already a compromise doomed to be compromised even further before it gets anywhere near law. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:36, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

A hypothetical narrative on Trump being a puppet
I went over the chain of events that was the 2016 election. I've compiled my thoughts here for your assessment, should you desire to give it.

The theory

Trump is being blackmailed into the atrocities he's committing, by the Russians.

Evidence for...


 * Throughout the 2016 election, Trump's voice had a consistent tired tone to it, as if he didn't really believe in what he was saying.


 * Trump had wanted to build a Trump Tower in Moscow since 1987, and had made attempts as early as 2005.


 * Giuliani, Trump's lawyer, testified that the Russians had been negotiating with him about the tower plans since he announced his candidacy, and stopped the day he won.


 * Several members of Trump's cabinet were arrested- a number of which were demonstrated to have Russian ties.


 * Trump has flaked on his wall, and other campaign promises, multiple times.


 * Trump's described personality does not match his extreme beliefs. He presents himself as assertive on his drastic measures, but off the podium, several witness accounts described him as "meek."


 * Trump has fervently denied he's made any business deals with Russia, despite the paper trail.

Evidence against...

I got nothing. Feel free to present some, though!
 * Trump is way too sleazy to blackmail. What possible information would be a public embarrassment to what is essentially a bloated ball of public embarrassment in a toupee.

Order of Events

Trump is told by Russia that he will get his Moscow tower if he becomes president. They feed him lines and ideas, and influence the vote so that he wins. As the election goes on, they talk about the tower, to keep his eyes on the prize. When he wins, they stop. They tell him he was never going to get his tower, and that if he talks, his entire family will be killed, or something similarly horrible. They also force him to follow his commands with the same threat.

Thoughts? Tyrian (talk) 23:05, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Too complicated. Too stupid. Better theory: multiple self centered interests pooled their resources for purely mundane reasons. Also, Trump really is that shitty a person. Also he lies, a lot. 23:09, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * So you consider the idea that he suddenly unleashed a hidden evil side that remained dormant for years and could not be discovered, right as he announced his candidacy to be simpler than the idea that he's carrying out someone else's will? Tyrian (talk) 23:18, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * What do you mean "suddenly unleashed a hidden evil side"? Trump's been a fuckhead for as long as anyone can remember. He's ripped off investors, maintained connections with organized crime, committed tax fraud repeatedly, hired illegal immigrants, started the Birtherism bullshit, molested women, and Tweeted conspiracy theories. And that's just the shit that we know about. He's always been like this. 23:27, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If you're just finding out about this stuff at starting in 2016, let me know which rock you've been hiding under, I want in. 23:31, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * (ec) what the fuck are you talking about? hes been a cunt for years. hes been a insincere liar for years. he hasn't just unleashed a 'hidden evil' - hoteliers don't normally have much input on policy. not much scope for evil there. and I dont think you quite grasp the role of Russia here. they would have interfered with the election whether trump asked them or not. its their thing, and they certainly didn't want hilary in the whitehouse, ie someone competent with strong opposition to Russia. they have what they wanted even if trump was an honest guy - a stench of illegitimacy hanging over the government. that the greed and vanity of trump and pals make them easy to be manipulated, that's just a bonus. the flagrant disregard of rules and regs has always been a part of trumps business. its just not been scrutinised like its been now. trumps arrogance and vanity make him putins puppet, even if hes not. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:57, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I was aware of his allegiances to the Birthers, and his investor conning, but none of that refutes my narrative, it merely provides an alternative. Recall that I've stated Trump's tried to plan the tower since 2005, and he joined the birther movement in 2009-2010 (which was about a year or two after it really picked up, so he didn't start it.) The sexual misconduct charges don't really refute my claims, and in fact, could be considered support for them, as it would demonstrate he was confident enough he wouldn't be caught doing so, and thus, confident enough to take the deal. If they offered the deal to him when he first tried to plan the tower, you could say that's why he joined the Birther conspiracy theorists, to garner votes. In addition, the "change to personality" thing would remain valid, because the racism and extremism didn't come to the fore until after he announced his candidacy. Though, if you're concerned that I support him, I don't. I want him impeached. I just think an inspection of the events will help us do that. Tyrian (talk) 00:17, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * your claim is hes being blackmailed, with Russia in direct control. what you present as a sudden and dramatic change of behaviour is neither sudden nor dramatic - its been standard behaviour for trump since forever and hes always been racist. see the central park 5 for example. there is nothing that supports your claim, its only that you've not been paying attention. AMassiveGay (talk) 00:47, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The Central Park 5 had actually falsely confessed, which made the New York Times, before Trump posted his opinions on it- it's entirely possible he was too incensed to think straight at that point. Please offer something more definitive. Tyrian (talk) 01:11, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Trump has a vast history of failed business ventures and plans that came to nothing. In none of these other cases did he sell himself into slavery to wealthy backers to allow the venture to come good; he mostly just moved on to the next scam. You'd have to explain why the Moscow tower was so much more important than any other. --Annanoon (talk) 16:32, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

You don't need to be a puppet to be backed by and benefit powerful interests
There's a corruption deep in the heart of american democracy. An institutional corruption. It doesn't require quid pro quo or affirmative assent by politicians, though it maybe greases the wheels a little to make that happen more often. It's taken root in the non-government trappings around the electoral system. A core media that wants ratings above all else and will chase any sensationalism. A periphery media that will back any story that helps their "side" accelerating extremism. Party apparati that, while not directly subservient to campaign cash, prefer candiates who can "raise money". Special interest groups that are happy to take funding from any source.

It's not just Russia. It's the Heartland Institute. It's the NRA. It's the DCC. There's just a whole superstructure of low-grade corruption that was too easy to capture. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Is there a difference? If you become reliant on the backing of those powerful interests to stay alive... Tyrian (talk) 23:39, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes there is a difference. Not in outcome for the people who get ruled over.  Oh no, it's exactly the same for you and me, but there's a difference in how individually culpable you need to be as a politician for corruption to be rampant.  That makes legalistic "let's get them for their crimes" harder to execute as a solution.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:16, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * something else has just occurred to me and that is motive. in the 'theory' up above, trump is blackmailed by the Russians to commit atrocities. why? what do the Russians get out of immigrants getting treated appallingly? it doesn't do their supposed puppet any favours if being beastly galvanises the opposition, it just makes it harder to get pro Russian policies through, makes people less likely to ignore suspect decisions. and as far as I know putin and friends are still the subject of sanctions. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:04, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The proposed motive for Russian propaganda(you know those dumb fake news sites and social media promotion of bullshit stories) in the 2016 election was to undercut the credibility of the result and create political discord in the US. This had, again as a hypothetical, the advantage of robbing the US of political authority in the then-relevant Ukrainian and Syrian crises.  Both of which have since panned out in Russia's favor, for what that's worth.   Getting Trump elected was not necessary, if Hilary won, and the country was more divided and radicalized, the gambit could have been deemed successful as well.
 * At least that's how the very serious people analysis went when the whole Russia-is-sponsoring-political-ads thing broke in 2016.  Regardless, it's hard not to see it as overblown with that context.  Because then the core story is not "Trump's a puppet and the election's invalid" but "The American public is dumb and credulous and our media is broken".  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:24, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * this has always been my view since trumps ties with Russia were first floated. Russia would have and did do these things whether he was in their pocket or not. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:15, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

"The rules" (Or why I'm such an asshole to centrists these days)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAbab8aP4_A Not a source, just a more coherent explanation than I seem to be able to form of my thoughts these days. 00:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks for the share! 03:24, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I can't deal with The Alt Right Playbook, because it gives me a real sense of doom about the future. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:05, 5 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Wow. looking forward to seeing your video on the Mueller report. nobsI'm all yea'res 16:05, 5 August 2019 (UTC)


 * To be clear, this video was not made by me, nor was I involved its creation in any way. I merely posted it to better illustrate my position. 16:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think there is definitely something to this, especially the obsession of the centre-left (and not only in the US) with being seen as “respectable” or “serious”, which seems to be about not coming up with anything that is too far from what their opponents to the right proposes. It’s basically politics and governing by balance fallacy. Realising this tendency, the opponent in a two-party system, such as the US, only has to become ever more extreme to get ever increasing concessions.


 * In multiparty systems, it tends to play out more subtly, with the centre-left seemingly satisfied with tinkering with rightist reforms to make them a little less rightist, unless they do what some European social democrats have done and basically adopt a right of centre, supply side neoliberal economic outlook as the basis for all policy formulation (cough, New Labour, cough). Generally, this has seen formerly vibrant social democratic parties more or less wiped out or at least haemorrhaging votes to either left/green parties (who seem to offer a clearer non-right alternative) or social liberals who are the long time occupants of this particular political territory and present themselves as bulwarks of tolerance and internationalism against right wing populism (Macron is the prime example of this). ScepticWombat (talk) 12:09, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

As someone who used to support Trump, I advise all Trump supporters to jump ship
I turned a blind eye to his racism. I ignored his science denial and pseudo-scientific claims. I ignored his sexism. I ignored his criminal activity. I just ignored his faults altogether. Don't turn a blind eye to what Trump does. He is evil. He is a traitor. He is Anti-American. Carefully think about the things Trump does. If you realize his faults, you will stop supporting him. If you continue to believe he is correct or be willfully ignorant- you are a major problem in this country. Specifically, your train of thought is a major problem in this country. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 02:08, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * i never supported him he was too stupid and an asshole for me to ever support him 02:50, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * @BabyLuigiOnFire The "Cult" part of "Personality Cult" is very literal. People get swept up into things, and intelligence has nothing to do with whether the personality cult works; what matters is emotional security.  Cults manipulate your emotions to control you and that is what trump's personality cult does as well.  MirrorIrorriM (talk) 13:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Were it that easy. I wish you could just tell people "Hey have you noticed all the bad things" and then list the bad things.  There's two gigantic barriers to changing someone's mind: 1.  They have to admit they're wrong.  2.  There's a socially generated engine that just hands excuses to keep believing.  Probably the reason you supported Trump to begin with was a case of #2.  "Hillary is just as bad" is a hella tempting line, and I bet it was the one that was hardest for you to overcome, right?  All the other trump supporters had the same excuse.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The arc of history is bending toward Trump's reelection. nobsI'm all yea'res 16:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Here comes Murphy's brokebrain now. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes of course, the logical argument is to discuss how historically Trump has an electoral advantage, not that he's a racist, advocates white supremacy, is damaging trade relations, destroying norms and is basically a crypto-fascist. Fuck off nobs.RipCityLiberal (talk) 17:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It is only possible to change someone's mind if they care about being right. Republican politicians, for example, only care about winning. Some people I have talked to like the fact that Trump pisses some other people off. It's a kind of shadenfreude. Its as if the GOP has become a party of trolls. What they are getting out of a Trump presidency is little more than the satisfaction of annoying everyone else. That is not a winning strategy.Ariel31459 (talk) 22:50, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

8chan taken down
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-49232333

According to a newssite in my country, Cloudflare also stopped supporting the site, because the El Paso shooter was a frequent poster on the 8chan boards. Is this the end of 8chan? Tinribmancer (talk) 21:10, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * some other host will find it and fondle it. well, hell, it did, was moved to voxility but that was shut down too. so welp, i'm sure it will find a home for deformed retarded abominations eventually. 21:14, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a bit amazing that it took this long to kill a site set up literally because enforcement of child pornography laws was too onerous to their twisted idea of free speech. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:21, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Cloudflare has taken WAY too long because of their damn "free speech" principles. They're still supporting other terrorist sites (also on another note, why does Wikipedia call pulling support for Daily Stormer "censoring"?) unless I'm missing part of the news. 21:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * NPOV, maybe? Tinribmancer (talk) 21:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * i too like putting half of a puppy into a blender 22:00, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2019/08/05/hoe-8chan-deel-uitmaakt-van-een-toxische-cultuur-die-niet-meteen/

The second article they made about 8chan in my country and pretty well detailed. It even has a timeline that also mentions that 8chan had CP on their boards. And that Brennan took the site offline (you need a translating site to read it, since it's in Dutch, so). Tinribmancer (talk) 21:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Righty here, can't remember my password so I'll do an anonymous edit for now, here's a link from CF themselves confirming the termination: https://new.blog.cloudflare.com/terminating-service-for-8chan/ 24.205.30.64 (talk) 22:47, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, the comments and responses are a real hoot. 22:51, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah... The poor nazis... maybe they should have invested in SOCIALISM!!!! 01:52, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

As far as I`m aware Brennan founded the site not because of he liked child porn, but rather because of his rather extremist libertarian stance against censorship of any kind. Even he is calling for the site to be shut down. — Oxyaena Harass  10:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * "Every one of these horrific tragedies has all the hallmarks of a false flag operation."
 * I'm done with this planet. 17:04, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * To live is to suffer. 17:13, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It's always funny when Nazis call those who remove hateful material from their house Nazis. And the QAnon derp was strong. The crazy has always existed here, unfortunately. Nonetheless, in these times, I'd check for how many of those entities had Russian IPs. Soundwave106 (talk) 17:44, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * lol @ Brennan like what the hell what does he think the site will turn into otherwise? what a moron 17:54, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I would just like to tell you, you people do great work
RationalWiki is the best combatant of ignorance I've ever seen, anywhere on the web. I've browsed this site for the past few months, i laugh at it more than I laugh at The Onion. Daenerystargaryen (talk) 22:08, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMxF-bokqE 22:11, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * FINLAND!!! — Oxyaena Harass  10:26, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The Onion was once laugh out loud helarious. Now it's a bit meh. My fingers are crossed that some fresh new writers will pop by. Shabi  DOO  23:57, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I still like their political pieces. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  05:51, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

iGeek and Ari Sabouni
Not sure how prominent this guy is, but holy shit his site is...wow. Basically every example of fallacy, torturing of data while simultaneously claiming that it's "Democrats" and fascists who are lying about the data, the works. I've seen his articles cited in online discussions, so I assume there is some awareness of his site, but I'm not sure. Can someone more experienced than me with proper statistics methodology, logic, etc. take a look at this and see if it's worth covering/rebutting?50.194.115.156 (talk) 22:29, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, so are you gonna link it to us? 23:05, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think this is it? Tinribmancer (talk) 23:18, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Seems somewhat low on the web traffic list. #2,270,469 per Alexa. That being said this site is showing up in a few Google searches. For example, a few years back there was a paper from Lianne M. Lefsrud and WU Vienna Institute for Organization Studies professor Renate E. Meyer on how scientists within the petroleum industry view global warming that got a few denialists very excited (because they failed to read it, failed to Google what the relatively new concept of "defensive institutional work" is, or even recognize that such concept is *management* oriented, with the paper being appropriately published in Sage's "Organizational Studies"). iGeek didn't read the paper either yet their short blurb on it is the #2 Google result for a search on "Lefsrud and Meyer". Soundwave106 (talk) 01:29, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * "Defensive institutional work" is not really a new concept, it's just a new name for an old concept of covering up for institutional failures until the hope is by the perps that they'll be dead by the time anyone sues. Bongolian (talk) 05:18, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a euphemism for "damage control" lol. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  15:16, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Free Speech
Isn't it still an act of free speech to deny someone a platform that you were under no legal obligation to provide in the first place? I'm speaking about things like Reddit's quarantining of /r/the_donald and 8chan being taken down (and about a million other examples). The Right seems to scream about "bUt My FrEe SpEeCh" whenever this shit happens, but it's not like these guys are being indicted for saying what they're saying - it's just that their platform is being taken away, which the private entities who control them have EVERY right to do. The fact that the Right seems to think they have a monopoly on constitutional rights is laughable to me. TheUnderOver (talk) 18:19, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Does it matter? If someone shows a reckless disregard for human life, why shouldn't we return the curtsy? Moral high ground? Fuck that. I'd rather live a peaceful world built on the blood and bodies of hundreds of asshats than live in this crap we call a society. Innocent people die and we debate on what to do. The answer is simple, but no one has the balls. Kill them all. Kill every last white supremacist/Nazi, and every dipshit who supports them. Leave none left alive. I guarantee it'll improve the world by a very large margin. 18:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not about a moral high ground, it's just about holding yourself to the same moral scrutiny you're applying to others. Golden Rule and all that. TheUnderOver (talk) 18:30, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a little bit about the moral high ground.  Also, thinking you have a monopoly on rights is almost the definition of conservatism.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:34, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * To hell with the golden rule. To hell with anything or anyone who lets this crap happen. How many lives have to snuffed out before you morons get that?!!? At the Gilroy shooting, a 6 year old died. There were laws that could have been passed before that kid was even born to help try to prevent that crap from happening. But no... "first amendment" this, "second amendment that"!!! To hell with whole bloody document if this is the end result!!!! Fix the problem instead of moping over crap!!! If you give a damn, FIX THE DAMN PROBLEM!!!!! Otherwise, someone will get fed up and fix it for you, and I guarantee they won't stop to care about collateral damage. 18:41, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * (ECx2)As much as I agree that there's absolutely no such obligation on the part of hosts, and the specific examples you cited being removed from our collective dialog has been nothing but positive, it's worth the slight side note that "free speech" can be an abstract principle you value as a host of a community. RatWiki is no exception, and we try to allow as much disagreement as we can until it becomes obviously disruptive.
 * Because, well, we all intuitively understand that dialog is good. And examining ideas critically is good. And uniform orthodox thought is bad.  And being in a community where there's a constant, pervasive fear of "going too far" and being exiled is bad.
 * So you try to be inclusive, but you be aware of the paradox of tolerance, you be aware of people who will twist good faith past its breaking point, you be aware of limits to your idea of free speech that obviously cross lines and damage your community. I don't actually think it's an easy question, though if you reach the point where your only defense for your position is "free speech" or "heterodoxy" you've probably got a really goddamn shit position.    ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:32, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, people who cry about spree feech don't actually care. They just want to be assholes. And in the end, if these far right churds they get their way, they start doing real censorship like Russian politicians targeting journalists. So in the end, they're a threat to free speech even if they say they aren't. 20:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Didn't XKCD put it best with https://xkcd.com/1357/ Cardinal Chang (talk) 19:54, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I like their take on it. But guys, remember that the argument of "companies are just exersizing their TOS" always assumes the TOS is reasonable to begin with. It's too easy to overuse this card and then the other side can easily accuse you of being a hypocrite when platforms try to shunt off proLGBTQ or some ass backward stretchy copyright violation thing. 20:26, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Hey, GrammarCommie, go easy on the language. Don't kill the turds, just contain them, deplatform them, install rules that they won't get any power. Without power or platforming, they neutralized and no further action needed. Of course, accomplishing it is mammoth task, but I don't see how killing is any more effective. 20:26, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Killing them all works too. White supremacists can't have a platform, if they are dead. 22:27, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * can we not kill anyone, douchebag or not? the death penalty is already fucked up enough as it is. 22:29, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * My idea of killing them would be trampolining them to lone asteroid and then watch them kill each other. 22:31, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Give them their own white only state somewhere in the Dakotas, heavily militarize the border, and let them have their own society. Won't last long when they no longer have the other to fear and a forced to deal with their own inadequacies.RipCityLiberal (talk) 22:56, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Who would do all the hard work that keeps the system going? What have the Dakotas done to deserve having such people dumped on them?
 * And - is it not better to have such people spouting their nonsense where they can be seen than to have them skulking around in the undergrowth until they do something atrocious? Drowning them in honey and attention so everybody can see their inadequacies is better than redshirting them. Anna Livia (talk) 23:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No. Giving the Alt-right a spotlight was a terrible idea. It moved the Overton window so far right the bloody neo-cons are now cast as the "sane" and "moderate" voices. 23:27, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I only use the Dakotas as an example because they are thinly populated and have lots of outdoorsy bullshit a lot of these fucks are into.
 * As for shining a light on them, I used to believe this actually was a good idea. But the speed at which information travels, has allowed many with this hateful ideology to create networks where they can fester, and continue to build each other, eventually spilling over into violence. Exposing them to the sunlight isn't enough, they have to be removed, root and stem, from society because they do not support the values of American society. RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:29, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Y'all making the assumption there is something inadequate about white supremacy which results in their views being seen as stupid by the casual observer. What actually happens is that white supremacists promote simple catchy propaganda which then takes a huge effort to debunk and deradicalize people from believing. Basically, shutting them down is entirely the right thing to do. 23:45, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If 8chan wants to cry that their free speech is infringed upon by being de-platformed in a capitalist society, it's maybe fine to let them cry it out, wait and see what they have to say when they catch their breath. We all know the ikkle childwen didn't understand how they were enabled to use free speech in the first place.  Unmoderated boards catch more flies than honey.
 * It's going to be a weird and wild reestablishing process for 8chan. I'm with Anna, the shit just got broken up, what are you still mad about?  It doesn't mean the kids aren't smart, it means they are kids, and boards like 8chan want kids in attendance.  You come across as smarter/funnier when you're talking to kids.  I don't think we treat anyone like dumbass children, but at least we have a modicum of civility but, occasionally, I look at you guys and say I thought this was rationalwiki   Gol Sarnitt (talk) 06:39, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

There will always be people who promote 'unpleasant ideas of various kinds' (which may vary over time) - the question is how much of a visible platform they should be given and what its nature should be (so the rest of us can understand what they are up to). Having such people skulking around other places and claiming that their viewpoint is being blocked from expression can make them far more dangerous.

'I thought this was rationalwiki' ('hic') - bear in mind that some of the repeated comments are actually being asked by newbies and passers-through (so it is the first time #for them#). Anna Livia (talk) 11:23, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, I'm with you that in the abstract, often revealing the stupidity of dangerous ideas is enough for people to challenge them. But white supremacy has two unique features in the United States: Centuries of historical support from governments, and access to lethal weaponry. White supremacists are correct when they say their power is being marginalized, because they are going from having all the power, to sharing it equally. Do they still hold the majority of the levers of power, and was the system still designed to their benefit? Of course! But that is no longer a guarantee. The United States also has private gun ownership that is so vast, there is a gun for every man, woman and child (this doesn't include military or police forces which are also heavily armed). The ability to get a weapon to attack people is as easy as going to a gun show and paying the price from a private seller. The Vegas shooter had over 20 assault weapons, with over 100 rounds of ammo for each. The Dayton shooter (who to be fair was not a motivated white supremacist) had mags that held over 100 rounds. These two features combined make this movement too dangerous, and it must be destroyed.RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:37, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , it really is a bad idea to be advocating indiscriminate violence as you seem to be doing. It is possible, though rare, for individuals to realize that their hateful ideology was wrong and renounce it (e.g. Derek Black, son of Don Black). When one gets so wrapped up in hating a group even if the group is demonstrably nasty, it starts to eat at oneself. Bongolian (talk) 19:49, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but from my view, the world would be better off if certain people and groups were removed. They are incompatible with the core concepts of society, removing them would be no different than pruning diseased limbs off a tree. I will admit that calling for them to be killed was a bit of an overreaction on my part. 19:54, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, I apologize. I wasn't in a good place mentally for the last few days. (Anger and depression does that.) With three mass killings, all by white supremacists/xenophobes/nazis, all pointless, needless, and preventable, I just snapped. I know it's not an excuse, but it's what happened. I'm still not back to "normal" yet, but I'm getting there. 21:01, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Two other points that I think need to be made: not only do people who agree with ideology hold terrible beliefs, but they believe they have the right to act and force them on others. Also important, far-right groups take advantage of this gray area between holding a reprehensible opinion and acting on those reprehensible beliefs with violence. This allows them to keep talking, but it's critical to remember that if these groups ever gained significant power, they wouldn't allow for any dissent.RipCityLiberal (talk) 22:49, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm an atheist
I am 99% sure there is no God. But I am 100% sure the God of the Bible does not exist.

If I am wrong, stomping the ideas of War, Pestilence, Famine, and Death into the ground, to work to make sure they do NOT take hold of the entire world and somehow culminate in Israel is blasphemy. If I die and Peter and Jesus and God all ask me "what were you doing?" I will say "I'm so sorry, I thought you guys were made up. To Hell is it, then?  I'll see myself to Hell, then, sorry to bother you, completely my mistake."

Until then, no, not a chance I will worry about going to Hell for saying any doctrine mankind has to follow isn't obviously manmade.

Qanon, I'm looking at you, you fucking modern day Nostradomus. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 06:00, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Q KNOWS ALL!!! — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  12:24, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure it's wise to be 100% sure of anything. A skeptical rational point of view will always allow the tiny minuscule possibility that the craziest bullshit is actually true. We could not be absolutely sure of it, even if we were 1000 times more intelligent. How could we if we aren't omnipotent beings? I think a better way to look at it is through levels of absurdity rather than levels of believability. For example...that a God exists...is already absurd. It's very simply to reject the existence of God through critical thought (but still allow for the tiny possibility of it being true). However add to the claim that God exists five thousand specific crazy illogical conflicting lunatic qualities (like the God of the Bible) and it's absurdity only increases exponentially. I think instead of jumping to 100% you might just want to add a whole lot of more 9s to it. Though some would simply claim all supernatural claims are equally stupid regardless of how specific they are and they all deserve 99.9 with an infinite series of 9s. It's difficult to decide if those extra 9s for more absurd claims are necessary or not. Shabi  DOO  15:43, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You don't know with 100% you exist. Why are you so constantly acting on that assumption?  While it's good to be open to changing your mind, confidence about some things is merited in the scope of being "wise".  I don't think "The god that the bible describes is not real" is an unreasonable thing to apply that sensibility.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:56, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Whatever your belief system - being helpful to/cooperative towards others, 'doing the right thing and trying to improve things' insofar as you can, having a sense of wonder and curiosity, and enjoying the universe and what can be found in it (whether or not it is the deity's creation) is probably a good attitude, (being a practical variant on Pascal's wager). Anna Livia (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The point I was making is that, while I do hold out a reasonable doubt that I am wrong and that some divine power does exist, I will also 100% accept my afterlife, be it to be proven to exist by my experiencing it. I know a lot of people who have had transcendental experiences, and I have too (but only while on psychadellics).  My point is to say, while I do, somewhere, must admit to myself that I entertain that there is a God, the Bible cannot be 100% accurate and I am sure it is not a correct interpretation of reality.  I am of the opinion that it is a beautiful work of fiction, even if it starts out clumsy and collects better philosophy and poetry as it continues.
 * I actually really like some of the things I can cherry pick from the Bible, especially the Old Testament. "That night, Jacob got up and took his two wives, two female servants and eleven sons and crossed the ford of the Jabbok"  (Genesis 32:22)  "Then I will remove my hand and you will see my back; but my face must not be seen" (Exodus 33:23). "You shall not muzzle an ox when it is treading out the grain" (Deuteronomy 25:4). "Roadkill has it's seasons just like anything.  There's farmcats in the autumn and opossums in the spring" (Ecclesiastes 3:1-8 crap, no that's Tom Waits). "If he had stopped to think he would have known better. But instead of thinking, he dropped his bone and sprang at the Dog in the river, only to find himself swimming for dear life to reach the shore" (hold on, this is getting too meta, that's Aesop, and nobody listens to Aesop). "For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished" (Matthew 5:18).  There it is.  Don't muzzle your oxen.  Phew, close one.  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:10, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Does this not worry anyone that the vice president and the head of the state department are old dudes pushing an Evangelical interpretation of the Bible? Like, two dudes who guide the agenda, but also their entire foundation for reality hinges on a Biblical Armageddon actually happening?  Is that not terrifying? Am I against that just because I'm a big scaredy-cat?Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:25, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

The White Male Mass Shooter
It is pretty clear from the data, that, among all, White males are the group most inclined to perpetrate mass shootings. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 2607:5300:203:1259:0:0:0:0 / talk
 * But Tucker Carlson told me last night that white supremacy is a hoax!
 * Also, whenever this point is brought up, the right's response is just "Well look at data of gun violence as a whole and you'll see the REAL story", as if it's fucking news to us that inner city gang violence is ALSO a big problem. But we're not talking about that, we're talking about random shootings perpetrated by radicalized men. TheUnderOver (talk) 12:32, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I personally think it's interesting that there haven't been any female mass shooters, or at least known that I know of. 12:48, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The Youtube headquarters shooting last year counts but yeah, it's pretty rare. Most of the list of mass shootings in the US of late has indeed been white men. Often non-ideological, revenge oriented, or just plain crazy... but when motives show up, incels and especially white nationalism stick out to me. For all the right wing moans on about Islamic terrorism (and it *is* a threat, don't get me wrong, especially in other countries), the last mass shooting committed by an Islamic terrorist in the US was the Pulse nightclub shooting in 2016, which seems like a distant mass shooting memory considering all that has gone on since then. Soundwave106 (talk) 12:59, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * And like clockwork, the Right is already at work spinning the narrative: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/mass-shooter-shooting-mugshots/
 * They're so predictable it hurts. TheUnderOver (talk) 13:12, 7 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm the guy who started this thread. I report here the relevant data since maybe not everybody wants to go read them from the link I posted. In the last 10 years, the perpetrators of mass shootings had been: 31 whites (46%), 12 blacks (18%), 8 latino (12%), 5 asians (7%), 2 native american (3%), 9 other/unknown (14%). Essentially all males. This is why I said that, among all groups, white males are the group most inclined to perpetrate mass shootings.
 * PS: I thought that creating an account would had stopped captchas, but I spent almost 5 minutes on captchas to post this. I understand preventing spam, but this seems a bit extreme. MotorW (talk) 13:36, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Playing devil's advocate here: You're not accounting for the racial make-up of the US as a whole, and your point falls apart once you do count for it. 63-72% of the US being white (depending on your definition), and 13% being black, means that the rate of mass shootings is actually higher among black people. TheUnderOver (talk) 14:04, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Listen, if for simplicity there were only two groups, blacks and whites, you would expect mass shootings to be splitted 50-50 among those groups. If instead you find than one group is above 50%, then such group is more inclined to violence. Here we have 5 groups, and white males makes 46% of the mass shootings, not 100/5 = 20%, hence they are more inclined to be mass shooter. MotorW (talk) 15:04, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No you wouldn't, because you have to know how much of the population is black and how much is white. If there was a 50/50 split of black people and white people, you'd be correct. But there isn't, so you need to compare rates per demographic. TheUnderOver (talk) 15:18, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * So according to your logic we would have that whites are the group least inclined to mass shootings, because they make 63-72% of population by only 46% of the mass shooters. Is that what are you saying? Because it doesn't make any sense since we live in a more than ever white supremacist America. MotorW (talk) 15:32, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * All I'm saying is that your conclusion ("white males are the group most inclined to perpetrate mass shootings") does not follow the data you're presenting. I completely agree that white supremacy is a growing problem today, and needs to be stamped out, but we need to address it in ways that aren't so easily disproven. TheUnderOver (talk) 15:39, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The Mother Jones list includes a lot of mass shootings that are treated differently in the media than the "massive random public place" shooting, such as workplace shootings and mass police shootings. Also, OP, check your numbers, I count 64 / 114 on the CSV as white, which is 56% (and thus fairly close to the population representation). It is true that mass shootings is not *just* a white *or* a right-wing phenomenon (actually random crazy or disgruntlement seems to be the most common reason). If we want to blame anything, race is kind of silly because mass shooting is multi-faceted (though any warped, twisted, extremist ideology can sometimes motivate). Instead we should blame the easy availability of firearms to citizens (of which there are *multiple* examples where reducing availability severely reducing mass shooting incidence) and a gun culture that is increasingly tied to paranoid identity and machismo (I can say this applies to the NRA as much as it also applies to gangs). Soundwave106 (talk) 15:43, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Overly reductionist. My conjecture: individually dis-empowered majority ethnic group males(particularly individuals with high social dominance orientation) in a fundamentally violence-worshiping society are more inclined to seek mass violence as a way of reasserting the social power they feel entitled to.
 * Inputs into this conclusion: 1. The data on mass shootings.  2.  The stated motives we have and their focus on either sexuality or outgroup threat.  3.  this study that found that underperfomance in online games in young men predicts their violent and hostile behaviors towards women in those same games, mediated by social dominance orientation.  4.  This study showing social dominance orientation in fictionalized juries predicts racial prejudice of rulings.
 * That's a fairly weak case, but the I think the mechanisms are intuitive enough, and make more sense than whiteness alone as explanatory factors. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:51, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't want to be an asshole here, but using race seems like a poor analysis, when ethnicity seems to make more sense. These shooters for example don't tend to be Eastern European, or Jewish, groups that would count as "white". But the trend of white-anglo protestant/atheist male ethnic group tend to be the overwhelming perpetrators of violence of this sort. But white supremacy is a hell of a drug.RipCityLiberal (talk) 17:38, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You didn't just say that my conclusion doesn't follow from the data. You literally said that the data shows the rate of mass shootings is actually higher among black people...
 * Yeah, probably white-anglo males are more inclined to mass shootings, but it's really difficult to get these information. MotorW (talk) 17:45, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * FUCK. This is already a shitty meme, and I think the unsigned OP was smugly lib-baiting.
 * Let me break it down real quick, so we can all get that the whataboutisms are COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. Yes, if we classify a mass shooting as more than four people being shot, not necessarily killed, cities with heavy gang culture are ALSO a fucking problem when it comes to GUN VIOLENCE, and this is a problem we are VERY QUICK to get tired of and start ignoring, and I ALSO AGREE that this gun violence shit in all of its forms needs attention.  However, gang violence DOES NOT DISQUALIFY deliberate and indiscriminate acts of violence based on hatred from being deliberate, indiscriminate, and based on hatred.  That's what gang violence is too, ya fucking dips.  While the news does tend to cover the more senseless acts because it's easier than getting into the specifics of gang culture, and yes, the news is also trying to get CLICKS, these facebook whataboutisms are working to simultaneously justify and mystify these actions.  EL PASO AND DAYTON ARE NOT MYSTERIES, NEITHER PERSON JUSTIFIED, THEY ARE DUMB ANGRY KIDS WITH GUNS, and whether they had opposite ideologies SHOULD NOT legitimize either one, and DOES NOT DELIGITIMIZE any call to action against this exact type of violence from happening in the future.  Would you rather we just ignore them, like we do with the other REAL FUCKING PROBLEMS ALSO GOING ON, what is the actual fucking complaint if you want to tag in gang violence and racial statistics?  I had to listen to this Tucker Carlson bullshit all day, like, in person, from real people who get their news from FOX, facebook, and 4chan.  I didn't hear it from Tucker's dog-whistling tiny face until tonight.  I'm sorry, I'm worn out, and I'm still really unhappy about all of this.
 * As an aside, I also think this "don't name the shooter because that's encouraging" schtick is stupid high-horse pseudoscience bullshit, it seems equally as likely to make anonymous heroes out of psychopaths as acknowledging they are full-faced humans who are worthless at dealing with their own problems, and we haven't really seen a drop in violence over it, have we? I mean, I'll play along, it's only been a couple years, but this feels like it plays straight into an anon's wheelhouse to me. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:13, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, trying to pull a Herostratus never works. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:27, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, trying to pull a Herostratus never works. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:27, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

If only
Everybody loved each other unconditioanly, this world would be a happy place to live.
 * I'm dubious. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:43, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * What even is unconditional love? Should you love a random murderer?  I could see the argument that you want them to be the best person they can be (ergo, stop murdering), but I love humanity because humanity has achieved many things.  I want the best for a human because I want to see humanity, the species to which I was born, succeed.  To love something without conditions is to love something for no reason, and by extension have no reason to continue loving them.  Such a flimsy and two dimensional image of love is dangerous because it erodes the value of the concept itself.  MirrorIrorriM (talk) 17:59, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * For example, I love my dog unconditionally, he could stalk people in the dead of night, choke them to death and gleefully smile as the light drains from their eyes, and he'd still be such a good boy, oh yes he is. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:10, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I love, you love me, we're a happy family. 18:24, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I would settle for a human race that did no harm to others and minded their own fucking business.RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:28, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately "do no harm" is rather ill-defined. Some things may seem harmless to some people but are not (e.g., using fossil fuels). Bongolian (talk) 19:57, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If only everyone subscribed to precisely my ideology with no variation. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:37, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * OP, remember to take 5-HTP. You're all "everyone just needs love man" right now, but you'll be more "god I really wanna die" when the MDMA wears off lmao ;). Being serious though, I'm always a fan of acknowledging that everyone battles with unique psychological demons and that we should be as kind as possible to everyone we meet. We get so caught up trying to be more clever, we forget we should also try to be kind and gentle, and that there's virtue in that pursuit. Dark Fire (talk) 04:04, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a deepity.Hubert (talk) 12:52, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Reboot Earth. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  21:09, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

People who blame video games, TV and movies for violence
Not just shootings, any form of violence. I am not pretending to be a sociologist or psychologist but wouldn't bad parenting, loose gun laws, shitty justice system, stigma towards mental illness, making drug/alcohol rehab insanely expensive and a laundry list of various other problems be the actual problem. Blaming media is too easy and helps nobody. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 20:03, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Culture is not without impact on behavior. Too "blame" individual facets of culture for specific behaviors is usually pretty inaccurate in that it tends to attribute large effect to things with small effect, often those doing it have no evidence and don't concern themselves with the existing contrary evidence.  But to say it's not possible to attribute any fraction of violence at all to any media influences is perhaps unfair.  As a related concept, media that reinforces stereotypes has been shown to increase prejudicial conclusions about real people.
 * The trick here is that without meaning to, there's a bit of a motte and baily to the word "blame". It can mean "attribute some part of an effect to" and it can mean "declare the prime cause of".  The former raises questions, if there's evidence to back it, of what boundaries the creators of media should be aware of, and how they can express their creation better.  The latter is garbage.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:21, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * people who blame media for violence is a red herring, nothing more nothing less. it's really pointless arguing this with them because we've been doing this since the goddamn 90's. 22:58, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, we've been doing this since the 1950s... 23:16, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, moral panics have really been around forever, but the first major violence oriented moral panic on video games, I think, was in the early 1990s (Congressional hearings, yay!) and was due to the release of Mortal Kombat and Doom. The 1980s video game moral panics were of the "you kids are ruining your life!!!" sort of nonsense that basically gets applied to every fad that kids like for some ridiculous reason. A bunch of bullshit in general. But Mother Jones pointed out there's a slight "stopped clock" element to the accusations due to the links between toxic 8chan culture (and its subsequent links to terrorism) and the toxic culture of Gamergate. Soundwave106 (talk) 00:29, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, fairly certain some suggested that Columbine was also videogame related... but that was a while ago, and there wasn't any political connection to distract from. Kencolt (talk) 01:08, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You're forgetting about D&D and the satanic panic... 00:36, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Not to mention Elvis and rock music (turned our kids into sexual degenerates) and Black culture during the 1920s-1930s. (Oh noes, black people having fun, oh the horror!) 00:39, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * We can go even further back (witch hunts being the earliest moral panic I can think of, but I'm sure there's more) if we want to be all inclusive. Columbine (1999) definitely had a moral panic element to it that included video games (Doom was dragged into that one) along with certain metal and industrial music bands (because of course aggressive sounding music will always be blamed for this sort of shit for some reason. I'm actually surprised music *hasn't* really been dragged into the shootings much so far (aside from the Dayton shooter being in a band of an obscure microgenre), as it was for practically everything back in the 1980s-2000s.) Soundwave106 (talk) 12:35, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * As if culture and media informed each other in some kind of "what's cool sells and what sells reinforces what's cool" feedback loop. This was actually kind of hard to find. Notice at 3:45 when he stops his Charles Bronson Death Wish glorifying and reads carefully from his script to say "It is said that the second amendment was America's first freedom." The video description: "An excerpt from Donald Trump's rally speech in Franklin, Tennessee. From Right Side Radio. Did you ever hear a candidate for president have a conversation with a crowd like this?" I don't think it's poe.Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:53, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * "In 1955 the Children and Young Persons (Harmful Publications) Act was passed, banning the sale to minors of magazines and comics portraying "incidents of a repulsive or horrible nature." And, well, that was that."source Scream!! (talk)
 * Wouldn't it be great if media more constantly reported on stress casualties, the workshop environment, crunch time, the abusive higher-ups, and the PTSD symptoms of those that develop the video games (seriously there are zero studies on those that *make* the damn things compared to ones that just study the ones that play 'em). Wouldn't it also be great if the media had some self-awareness about the own violence it promotes such as airing a guy burning alive for all to see? 15:23, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Blaming video games for most things is just another take on the typical moral outrage that gets spread about every now and then, whether it be videogames, industrial music, horror films, cinema, rock n roll music, books (Aye, books in the 18th century were seen in a rather weird light.) But, there is a justifiable worry from video games, but not the one that gets typically bandied about. Video game problem solving; you play a game an obstacle occurs, do you try to understand said obstacle and solve the problem, or just attack with all guns blazing? Take a look at gamergate and subsequent deplorable events involving videogame fans, a criticism occurred, and the response was to simply drown out, harass and attack. Cardinal Chang (talk) 20:36, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Some twitter person put it best "I don't think video games cause violence, but they do cause gamers and so they should be banned". ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:38, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Brilliant Cardinal Chang (talk) 20:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm an old guy. So I'm tron between blaming universal suffrage or compulsory education for all the bad things in society today.  We didn't have any problems with video game violence when women knew their place and the poor couldn't read.  (Mmmm I think I'm channeling here.)Hubert (talk) 17:31, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Mass shootings again
Is there a current spate of such shootings in the US, or is it 'the media deciding to report on them (and will then switch to something else)'?

With the statistics given 'somewhere above' - is there sufficient information to distinguish between 'particular grievances with the persons shot, gangs etc' and 'random shooting at people (in a particular environment)'?

There is a news-factoid that 'some South American countries' are advising against going to the US because of the risks. Anna Livia (talk) 13:58, 8 August 2019 (UTC)


 * While different choices about how to define a mass shooting and the period over which to calculate mass shooting trends have resulted in disagreement about whether the frequency of mass shootings has risen, there is clear evidence that the media’s use of the term mass shooting has increased significantly over recent decades (Roeder, 2016). Unfortunately, the ambiguity in how mass shootings are defined and counted may result in increased media coverage influencing public perception without better informing our understanding of the prevalence of mass shootings or their determinants, trends, social costs, or policy implications.
 * Do with that what you will, but I personally agree with it. What's more telling is WHY mass shootings are happening, what are the prevailing motives behind them, etc. America obviously has a unique culture of violence that needs to be examined and addressed. TheUnderOver (talk) 14:09, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually I'm a big dummy - that study only goes up until 2013. I'm not sure what those charts would look like up until today. TheUnderOver (talk) 14:10, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * How logical is it to make a distinction between 'random' and 'non-random' (feuds etc) mass shootings? Anna Livia (talk) 14:22, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it is logical, but it's difficult to do. I would describe a "random shooting" as one where the victims were not individually chosen - they just happened to be in the wrong place, at the wrong time, and it was up to the killer's immediate discretion whether or not they would be a victim.
 * "Non-random shootings" would be shootings where the shooter was targeting a specific person or people. Workplace shootings, family shootings, and gang shootings would fall into this category.
 * What I'm currently split on is where to bin shootings where people are killed merely for their background - so like the El Paso shooting and mosque/synagogue shootings. Obviously these people were chosen to be killed by the killer, but he didn't individually target the victims - he's targeting their demographic as a whole. If that makes any sense. TheUnderOver (talk) 14:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I tried to middle the insanity of the Cuomo "Fredo" controversy, both sides are stupid. I was actually told angrily by a guy the only side that encourages violence and doxing is the Democrats.  Not the left, he didn't call them the left, he called them Democrats and then proceeded to attack journalists.  I was so upset I couldn't say words, couldn't even remember the Proud Boys were a thing, and had to disassemble the conversation.  So I said "This sounds like the dems are doing their own gamergate." And he stumbled through a couple gamergate things and I said "Yeah, the problem with gaming journalism is it's not journalism.  It's gaming advertisement.  The whole thing was a complaint, not an argument.  And a big part of the complaint was to make violent threats and dox, which wasn't a tall mountain for a lot of those guys to climb.  So I get what you're saying, if CNN is actually encouraging this shit.  I don't know, I don't watch CNN, I don't watch FOX, I don't like any of those guys."   I think it poked his brain, for a second, because he calmed down and after we had a laugh about gamergate (which we are clearly on opposite sides of) he was much nicer about saying "well, the only calls for violent protest and doxing I've seen are from Democrats."  It was a much longer and nuanced conversation than that, but I worry that dog whistling is not the problem anymore, complete confirmation bias has been achieved. Sorry to long-road the point. I ended by saying "Go ahead and red flag Cuomo.  I don't care.  Red flag me, red flag everyone.  You know I don't like guns, so you know I don't care about this gotcha thing that you're so hyped about, if it was up to me the police wouldn't have to have guns."  And it was fun.  But really, seriously, red flag anyone who wants to own a gun.  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:38, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Tired
AGhKUGm7jIQ Fix it. 19:21, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

palestine shootings
https://mobile.twitter.com/shehabagencyen/status/990681863290347520

https://mobile.twitter.com/shehabagencyen/status/990681863290347520

How are these two instances self defense?

Not to restart the old drama about mona but jw your opinions. 66.65.75.21 (talk) 19:27, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You pasted the same thing twice. And you don't have to convince me that military policing of civilians results in murder.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:31, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Is there some reason you are posting a tweet from over a year ago? CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 20:37, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Now if only Trump can hurry up and get in there and mediate a truce for once and for all. I would imagine he is saving his brilliant negotiating techniques for this final triumph before his humiliating loss in the next presidential election. Fingers crossed that his Art of the Deal will pull through, just this once! Shabi  DOO  23:18, 8 August 2019 (UTC)


 * https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Fouro4N_maE 66.65.75.21 (talk) 02:05, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The divide between military action and protest is bad, and it's worse than we want to talk about, especially in cultures that we don't actually understand. Because unnecessary violence is stupid to us, we generally agree on that as Americans, but we keep screwing ourselves over with whataboutisms.  In America, jail culture keeps people alive, but that's not a real solution either, and it's not a future-forward solution, so here's where I go poe for the less sarcastic minded.
 * It's a profitable solution that sends lots of people to jail and provides plenty of opportunity to capitalize on luxuries like calling your mother or children, while simultaneously (and consensually) selling the recordings of those calls to a government that works for everyone. Sure, it drives profit for some of us people, but it has laid the groundwork for manifest innovation.  You have to pay your court costs, your jail fees, pay huge increases on insurance, no matter what, just like we have to pay for our server space and our lawyers and lobbyists who have to explain, in great detail mind you, why this is good for the government AND society at-large, and why it would be counter-intuitive to tax such an important service as monitoring non-conforming or atypical citizens that can't seem to pay their own way out of jail.  Pays for itself in the service it provides.
 * Look, if you're trying to stay out of jail in America, you have to do what everybody does, and pay your bail. And if you can't do it you have to go to jail.  And if you do get in jail, and get out on probation, and you can't pay to keep yourself out, clearly what you're trying was not worth it, and you should go back to jail and spend more time thinking about how to start over.  What manifest innovation realizes is, what if we just extended that same idea of constant monitoring and selling the rights you gave up when you became a ward of the state, sorry, diabetic which is sometimes type II, probably self inflicted, to monitoring your blood-sugar levels in a convenient and constant manner that you don't even have to notice the cost of? You benefit by giving us rights to every bit of biological data you have, plus, by a philosophical default, everything else you do that requires you to use our blood.  So what, we profit by selling every bit of data you agree to share with us by downloading the software?
 * I mean, come on, you want to monitor your blood-sugar conveniently with your own technology, and OUR software? You should want us to profit off of that too or the whole system collapses and you'll be eating rats.  Just like if you wind up a part of a group of dudes running around menacingly near a fire with a dude who has both his hands explicitly on a maybe-lethal tire, in which you have also agreed to be shot.  Or at least, hey, you could be jailed and taxed outside of your means, but you'd also have implicitly given your consent to that. I mean, woah, good luck defense team. And nobody dies here. Nobody dies in manifest innovation, it's like a win win win scenario, and that's one more win than normal.  Protest is a convenience of the modern world, stop acting like it's entitled to you and pay us to protect you already.  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:30, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

The Mueller Investigation
I'm about halfway through this draft breaking down the Mueller Report. provided some support, but I'm getting near the point where I really need some assistance with turning a slightly snarky summary of the report into a good article. If the writers of the Trump-Russia Connection want to port any relevant info over I welcome it (especially links to documents). Also some images and improvement of links would be very helpful. I've still got about eight more of obstructive acts to write about, and I was planning on including a section about the response to the report from the administration and Congress as well as the general public. Also a section about the Barr memo and Mueller's testimony to the House Oversight and Intelligence committee's.--RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:59, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It's certainly good enough to move to mainspace at this point. Nerd is the main contributor to the Trump-Russia connection page. More people are likely to have a read through once it's in mainspace. Bongolian (talk) 04:29, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Just moved it to the Main space. -RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:59, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 99% done. If someone wants to put some pictures and clean up my language, go nuts.RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:56, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Did somebody say an article needs pictures? 01:15, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh fuck yeahRipCityLiberal (talk) 19:39, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Ben "Yahtzee" Croshaw
Do we actually know what his opinion was about GamerGate (since he was still working for The Escapist during the whole 2014-2016 shitshow)? Based on some video's on his yahtzee19 account on YT, I'd say he wasn't pro-GG. Someone here knows? Tinribmancer (talk) 15:32, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * From what I remember, whatever his views were, he tried to stay out of it and keep his show and his brand as far away from it as possible. What you're saying indicates that he disagreed with it, but was afraid that he'd get backlash if he stated his true opinions on the matter, which he would've basically done if he'd followed the rest of the staff of The Escapist out the door. In short, the same reason why a lot of people assumed that Taylor Swift, unlike so many other pop stars, didn't publicly endorse Hillary Clinton in 2016 (because, having started out as a country singer in the 2000s, people thought that she didn't want to get Dixie Chick'd; the truth turned out to be more complicated). KevinR1990 (talk) 15:57, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I feel that's best course of action. Probably what I would do- if only to be more objective about my thoughts on it.2600:1:F540:2718:0:62:3566:A301 (talk) 11:32, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

The president and first lady standing together with an infant freshly orphaned in a mass shooting
The president smiles broadly and gives the camera a thumbs up. Nothing in this picture is a crime. No one is being hurt in this moment. But it makes me unbelievably pissed off. What the in ever loving fuck. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:43, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Sicking. 16:06, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Eh, Trump smiling with a baby is probably the least-bad thing about the whole visit. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:BD5D:3C9F:496E:B17 (talk) 16:18, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Like I said, nothing is a crime, no one is being hurt, but it's just so fucked up. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:37, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * He has no ability to show empathy in any way, it's so embarrassing.RipCityLiberal (talk) 17:07, 9 August 2019 (UTC)


 * [[File:Sabrina-Harman.jpg]]


 * 17:15, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Ucchhh, thanks for the lift, yeesh. But to the topic, I mean, it's like if people didn't even have to photoshop the Bush book upside-down to criticize his obliviousness to ANY situation.  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:13, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Could you hide that in some way, like link to it and cw it? Thanks. I don't like seeing that on my feed. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  21:19, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Translating articles from English to Spanish
Hi everyone! I don't have time to finish the translations I started months ago. I just have more works than back then. I would like some help; Agenda gay,. Thanks. &mdash; Unsigned, by: ∆JP二千二∆ / talk / contribs

If a national emergency occurred and multiple communication stations failed- the National EAS would not be a very good option for delivering emergency information
The other day, the National Period Test of the Emergency Alert System took place. I know many of you don't care but in many places the test message either was distorted by too much static or it did not show up at all. This is not about my interest in the EAS but rather a national security issue.

If a national emergency took place and the National EAS became the main means of delivering emergency information- it probably would be ineffective. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 16:24, 10 August 2019 (UTC)