RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive374

How have you’ll been coping w the election?
So for everyone whomst lives in the US or has friends/loved ones there, how have you been coping with this interminable stress??? For me it’s just been benzos, alcohol and weed, but has anyone done anything else? 12:28, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Like I said earlier, it's been difficult. Hang in there. I've mostly spent the time testing out my new camera (mostly in my own backyard - not many other places I can go now) and binge-watching anything that's decent. Every now and again I go back to the FiveThirtyEight election liveblog because I'm a masochist. NervousWreck96 (talk) 13:20, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Video games and walks for me. --RZ94forMod202 (talk) 15:31, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I've been building a Hermit Kingdom in Stellaris and working on an essay for an apprenticeship, also getting ready for a stint at UPS. Booze has helped. Artificius (talk) 16:04, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh hey, I've been playing a lot of Stellaris too. Trying to get all the achievements, just because.  Need to get the Contingency to spawn, dammit, and still looking for Sol during WWII.  The C.A.R.E. random event is still my favorite thing ever from that game, just the whole hilarious description of our own society. CoryUsar (talk) 17:51, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I have been painting my house and listening to sports talk radio a lot. Ariel31459 (talk) 18:24, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * World of Warcraft... and various Godzilla marathons inasmuch is it's been the anniversary of the Big G. Kencolt (talk) 00:26, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Same as how I deal with life in general. Booze (beer and scotch) and video games. Unfortunately I ran out of scotch right now and the liquor store won't open for 6.5 hours. Beer will have to suffice. *Sigh* And video games of course. 00:40, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Lmao shit I don’t remember making this post or even editing rationalwiki at all lmao guess that means it was an effective strategy. But also, please ignore contribs from any time after the election til now, I tend to be an idiot when blacked out. 00:47, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Even Eastern Europe hates Trump


Found this pic from Yahoo news, I like it. --RZ94forMod202 (talk) 23:17, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Well Kosovars would. Probably not huge fans of racist islamophobic war criminals over there. Good for them anyway. 23:27, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah if there's one particular place on Earth where racist islamophobic war criminals aren't particularly well respected it's Kosovo.Evilatheistheathen (talk) 23:50, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Kosovo also loves Clinton for obvious reasons. 23:58, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Well that makes one of them... Evilatheistheathen (talk) 00:05, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

A Love Letter to Ernie Chambers
Ernie Chambers has been the absolute epitome of what a politician is supposed to be. His election campaign was he, himself, running door to door in an area of town that every other canvasser was scared to go to. He won his first election because he wasn't scared to say "I'm fighting for you." and then he was never scared to say "I'm fighting for the black people." I saw him speak once, at my private Lutheran college. He derided racism to our claps, and closed with "You clap, but when white people see me, they want to run away" and then just laughed for like 30 seconds as the audience tried to clap/grumbled/stared at him in the deadest auditorium I've ever been in. I immediately decided this was the best public speaker I had ever seen. He went on to attack faith in God as a solution to problems. This was before his famous lawsuit. He said "A lot of people want to cry and pray about the rain, but I'm going to grab an umbrella." And he did it, he grabbed that umbrella because people fucking needed a defense for not being able to show up in court
 * I don't know what we are going to do without Ernie Chambers. He is the most honest, most forthwith, and most protective of his people politician I have... adjacently met, I got to shake his hand.  And I don't know what we are going to do without him.
 * Ernie Chambers is a genius, a firebrand, and a politician all rolled into one. I hope we can survive not having him.  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:25, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Go out and vote
Assuming that you did not vote early, head out to the polls and vote that orange piece of shit out of office. --Ratildonian King (talk) 10:11, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * the Trump Train is unstoppable. Four More Years! 1.152.108.133 (talk) 10:26, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I think I will say that when G98 gets hailed as the best movie ever and MC: Bedrock will cease to be overhated.--HedvigsenSkreonk here 10:37, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * So unstoppable that he needs to resort to election tampering... Oh wait, that's because he's unpopular and you're too stupid or dishonest to see that. 13:09, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I did my patriotic duty of voting........I voted Biden. Now holy crap the line at the polls was long. At least most people were smart and wore masks. It was amazing to see. --Ratildonian King (talk) 13:40, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You know what? If you want to vote for the sentient bag of warm piss, you do so.  Just vote.  And always vote.  And never bitch about the results if you didn't vote. CoryUsar (talk) 14:04, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I just got back from voting. 19:27, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Rabbit isn't going to get the Trix on my watch, nosiree Bob! Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 21:15, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The apocalyptic lines at the polls were... 2 minutes long. And there was a noticeable absence of any intimidation efforts, as though maybe such fears were, if not overblown, far from universal. Then again, this is the state that (rightly or otherwise) twice voted against its native son, and where a driver's license is pretty much ubiquitous. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい ) 05:23, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

If this is our election discussion thread, let me just say I am confident Biden will win but Trump is doing WAY better than I thought he would.-Flandres (talk) 12:45, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Trump just might win
Ok, starting to get a bit nervous. I mean, I shouldn't I despise both candidates, but it's the difference between being beaten with a rubber hose and beaten with a baseball bat; pick the rubber hose. But anyway, been updating my little thingy on the 538 project's site, and as the results are being called by CNN, well, Trump is slowwwwly gaining a chance with their model. Pre-election, it was 10%, now 12%. But, the results on CNN for states like PA are scary. I know I know, Blue Shift and whatnot, but right now Trump is leading more than 5 to 4 in both PA and Michigan. What if the Blue Shift isn't as strong as we thought? What if Trump takes PA, or horrors, MI? Trump's chances jump to 60% just with PA. Ugh, not getting any sleep tonight. CoryUsar (talk) 05:36, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Update. Trump won Florida.  Chances of him winning again now at 24%. CoryUsar (talk) 05:49, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Iowa called for Trump. Not unexpected, but now at 26%. CoryUsar (talk) 05:55, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * My city just put up one. Not hopeful, but unicameral, baby.  If you can't fight the electoral college, fight for the unicameral.  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 06:30, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I actually like the Electoral College in principal. The President should have broad support across the country; if the popular vote was all that mattered, then the parties wouldn't care one bit if all their opposition was concentrated in giant chunks, and, well, those chunks would logically turn around and say "I hate the guy, my neighbors hate the guy, my business interests are going to lose money, my customers won't have money so I'm going to be hurt even more, why should I continue to be part of this Union?".  Spread out the support and opposition, and it's more "ok, my guy didn't win, but my neighbors sort of support the other guy, and while I dislike the new tax structure at least some of my customers will have more money to spend at my store and I won't lose too much, so be it".  You know the whole "if it ain't broke, don't fix it"?  The EC works while broken, and really, those types of things are even more dangerous to attempt to fix. CoryUsar (talk) 07:09, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It's a good take, but I still think 2020 in America is better off with one person one vote. And I'm actually in a rare case where my vote I guess meant something in the middle of a red tide.  I think it's not unimportant for states to have their own say in things, but we already do that.  And the dirty thing is telling states one federal agency is going to have less impact on their majority while also benefiting disproportionately from their votes.  I get the electoral college, and I can appreciate that it makes my vote more powerful IF I vote same as my block.  But it's not ideal for me either.  Put me 20 miles east or west and my vote would not have mattered.  I don't subscribe to the narrative that America is on the verge of a violent civil war, I think that speaks to a comfortable homogeny that nobody is going to be able to draw actual lines around.  If we want change, since it clearly isn't going to happen from this election, it needs to be state level governance, and pushing for unicameralism I think would be effective in a lot of states.  The idea that an entire state level legislature, all law proposal should run by the two major parties' ideals reads a little fatalistic, no?  Gol Sarnitt talk) 07:23, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I mean, I'm not afraid to tell people I voted Biden. If I was in a situation where I was afraid to tell people who I voted for, I would just say "I voted for a man I hate, who represents a party I dislike" and then I would say "Yeah, I voted for Biden" but the same is true for Trump.  If either of those septuagenarians squared up, I'd have to say "no thanks, old man, I'm not a murdler." Then I would walk them to their old man chair and let them take a nap because they are both too fucking old to be in charge of a country.  Like, cool, they don't have to drive anymore, but Boomers are going to have to get comfortable with the fact that politicians are now younger than them.  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 07:57, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * We aren't on the verge of civil war yet, but the electoral college in theory reduces the chance of that happening. Except for that time when it sort of did cause the actual Civil War, where Lincoln won with 39.9% of the vote in spite of not even being on the ballot in 7 states, and would've won even if all 60.1% of the other votes were for just a single person.  But really, slavery wasn't going to end peacefully.  The slaveowners had committed no crime, and the government is specifically prohibited from seizing property without fair compensation.  With the war, it was simple; the slave owners committed treason, thus all their rights and property are forfeit. CoryUsar (talk) 15:07, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm calling PA for Trump, and I was in NC recently and said back then it was all Trump country, I think we should call that as well. There's a strong chance of Biden getting it 270-268... which means that Trump is going to bitch about something. CoryUsar (talk) 15:36, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * So I'm looking at the counties in PA that are still counting. Philly is kind of slow, but doing napkin math and assuming each county's breakdown is the same as the current count, Biden is going to get 350k more votes than Trump in a few counties.  But that's not including the counties where Trump is winning, and the gap is still 500k votes.  Trump is winning PA.  Michigan is still counting Detroit, and it looks like Biden will get another 100k more than Trump.  Michigan is going Biden.  Wisconsin is razor thin, but Biden looks to win that as well.  According my thingy, Trump has a 2 in 3 chance of winning now.  FFS. CoryUsar (talk) 16:34, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * And Georgia looks like a toss-up. It looks like Biden will close the gap by 80k votes from the Atlanta area, but that still gives Trump a 20k lead.  Could be more, could be less, but leaning Trump by a razor's edge.  Can't call it yet. CoryUsar (talk) 16:38, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Calling Michigan for Biden, Alaska for Trump. Just be done with it.  Only NC, GA, Nevada, and that weird vote in Maine that I think will go 3-1 Biden.  GA and NC likely Trump, so it really boils down to Nevada to give Biden exactly 270 votes. CoryUsar (talk) 20:54, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Georgia's going to be close and might be up for recount. Right now, according to The Associated Press it's 98% in and 0.8% for Trump. That's recount territory right? (Obviously I know recount could be fucked up like in 2000, but with Trump demanding recount in Wisconsin, it would be hypocritical to the extreme for SCOTUS to rule that recount is okay there but not in Georgia...not that I put the current SCOTUS beyond the possibility of insane hypocricy). Also New York Times gives it as 95% counted and 1,0% for Trump. Which would mean that Biden could still bring it to recount numbers. Recounts usually favor democrats if I'm not mistaken.  01:24, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Pennsylvania is narrowing fast too. I have my hopes up still. 01:27, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

You know what?
Isn't this the thing I said would happen? I feel like this is a thing I said was going to happen. Biden was fucking doomed from the start, and I have a sinking feeling that none of the people who failed to understand that here will learn a goddamn thing. I'll admit I had some doubts about my prediction given that catastrophic human and economic damage of trump's last year, but don't nominate right wing assholes with nothing to offer anyone because you think you're smarter than everyone else and think centrism is a strategy rather than cowardice incarnate. LEARN SOMETHING FROM THIS. Duce, Helena, Shabidoo, get out here, rub your noses in the mess and please learn something besides blaming others. Please, I'm begging you. Like I said, sinking feeling, you'll both just deflect and utterly fail to reflect on how you voted for a right wing rapist as "sensible" and got NOTHING for it. I don't blame the people your idiot centrism dragged into an unwinnable situation, rapist-v-rapist, right-wing-scumbag-v-right-wing-scumbag hell election with no good answers. But I do absolutely want you two idiots, specifically, to look at what you've wrought. I shut my mouth the whole damn election on the reasonable chance that I was being overly certain about his doomed chances.

I don't care if this gloating, violating my probation, whatever stupid fucking shitfaced politeness obsessed pedantry might accuse me of. You fucked up totally, openly defended rape, and for nothing. Tried to get me banned for saying that was wrong. Fuck you. Become less terrible from this. Do it. My eternal scorn might not disrupt your sleep at night, but the world deserves better than you've been giving it. Hell, I deserve better, and I'm a fucking asshole. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 08:11, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Trump hasn't even been projected a winner yet and you're drawing firm conclusions already? I'm scratching my head trying to figure out what exactly is the lesson supposed to be learnt even if Trump wins. I would have preferred Sanders became president. As a non-American the only thing I truly give a shit about is Trump not winning because of how much he has destabilised world trade and international relations and because Canada/Europe/NZ/Japan and most of the world in fact are sick to death of his trouble making nasty shittery. I don't know if Sanders would have beaten Trump and neither do you. You don't have some special magical insight into what would have been and you're lying if you pretend that you do. The only two things you said that I disagreed with were 1) It was a sure thing Trump would win. That was fucking ridiculous and I still think it is. If Trump wins that doesn't suddenly validate your prediction. You'd have to use your magical election predicting skills in say a sample of say 20 elections in Democratic countries before I would take you seriously. Even if it were a flip of a coin you'd have a 50% chance and Nate Silver one of America's best political statisticians gave Trump a 10% chance of winning which is significant. I never said Trump wouldn't win, I just said your confidence in your prediction was silly. The second claim you made 2) A vote for Biden is no different than a vote for Trump...was also ridiculous and I'm not going to argue with you about that, it's a stupid claim to make and I would say such a statement would be ridiculous for just about any political competition in a two-person political race. Could you maybe wait for the final results before declaring "I told you so"? Shabi  DOO  08:41, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * So perhaps you'd like to rephrase your post here? Shabi  DOO  18:04, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I had to go to bed 'bout 6 hours ago. Then it seemed mildly optimistic. A

fter waking up, it's depressingly close. Let's say Biden takes Nevada and Wisconsin (seems more probable than not at the moment). He still needs to flip Michigan, Pennsylvania or Georgia to clinch the win. He could flip any of those, but let's say he doesn't and flips North Carolina instead. There's a fucking electoral college tie for you. I actually don't know what happens if EC is tied. Some American willing to enlighten me on it? Either way it's going to be too close for sanity.
 * Sorry about the rambling post. I'm slightly overhung and very depressed about the situation. 10:08, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Well put. — Oxyaena Harass  11:10, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * From what I've read (its actually hard getting the full details of the rules) if there is a tie, then each state gets one vote in the house of representatives with 26 votes enough to choose the president (I cannot find answers to what would happen if there is a tie). The representatives from each state vote, if it is tied then no vote is made. For example if 8 Ohio representatives for trump and 8 vote biden then that state gets no vote. If it is 9 trump and 7 biden then the state votes for Trump. States with only one representative vote whatever the representative wants. Looking at the numbers right now it seems it would go to Trump. Strangely the senate votes for the Vice President (one vote per senator) and technically could choose a vice-president from the opposite party of the president. That would be very odd. I've noticed that Michigan is inching towards Biden and I read that a lot of likely democrat votes from Detroit are yet to be counted and also that Pensylvania is hardly a sure thing for Trump. Having listened to what scumbucket Trump said about "voting fraud" I wouldn't be surprised if there is social unpleasantness if Biden wins. I think Trump would literally set half the country on fire if it meant getting 4 more years (literally). Shabi  DOO  11:17, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The electoral college is super extra mega stupid and doesn't belong in a modern democratic country. It makes getting rid of a bad leader more difficult if their opponent can win the popular vote (my millions of votes) and still not win. There are two other institutions which help to represent a cross section of the country (the house and most especially the senate). It is not necessary to further skew the popular vote at the executive level. Shabi  DOO  11:22, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Georgia will probably flip. The reason it seems so deep red right now is because Atlanta hasn't reported all of it's votes yet. Guardian says they have ~300k left to count and Atlanta is blue as fuck. The gap is a little over 100k. 11:33, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Historically speaking, lackluster milquetoast centrist dems always lose to the GOP candidate during presidential elections. — Oxyaena Harass  12:44, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, Bill Clinton obviously lost twice. :p The real problem with this result is that no matter what happens, the rhetorical style of Donald Trump was not rebuked. The Republican party has been drifting towards a illiberalism somewhere between Silvio Berlusconi (a figurehead based, backward-looking party with no real ideology) and Eastern European far-right parties like PiS / Fidesz (nationalism primarily based on various forms of social identity). That will not change. It is arguably worth noting that the decline of Italy into the "sick man of Europe" began with the rise of Berlusconi. 72.184.174.199 (talk) 14:04, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, Bill Clinton was not "lackluster." You can argue he did bad things with his presidency, but he was very good at being a centrist democrat compared to the likes of, say, Al Gore or John Kerry..-Flandres (talk) 14:13, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, Michigan has shifted to leaning Biden. That together with Wisconsin and Nevada would be enough for victory, but hopefully he'll manage to flip Georgia and Pennsylvania too for a clearer victory. 270-268 Electoral College might not be enough to prevent ugly aftermath in the current political environment. 14:40, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree that Biden was doomed from the get-go. Just off the top of my head...
 * He needed to pick a more exciting VP than Harris, who didn't even have enough support to attempt a run for the nomination; Warren would've been the best pick, at least she got a significant chunk of the votes.
 * He was in hiding for far longer than needed. Trump was criticized for hiding in a bunker for a month during the initial stage of the pandemic, but where was Biden for months prior to the Dem convention?
 * Maybe he was recovering from his face-lift? He didn't need the surgery, it looks freaky and isn't fooling anyone.
 * His refusal to clearly answer on whether or not he'd pack SCOTUS terrified a huge number of people, especially people like me that despise Barto Kav and found the political ads for Amy Barrett off-putting. CoryUsar (talk) 15:21, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * As for Clinton disproving that milquetoast centrist Democrats tend to lose, I don’t think that’s that clear. Just like Obama, Bill Clinton ran his first campaign as a (somewhat) transformational candidate with oratorical flourishes that hinted at a sort of “New Deal’ish” concern for those left behind (even if Clinton rewrote Roosevelt’s “Forgotten Man” into a more circumscribed “Forgotten Middle Class”). By contrast, when Democrats such as Gore, Kerry and Hillary Clinton ran as openly status quo custodians, they lost, despite somewhat/quite favourable circumstances (Gore on the back of the “Clinton Boom”, Kerry against the Bush’s Iraq War and Hillary against Trump). ScepticWombat (talk) 15:57, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Biden isn't running as a pure status quo politician. Publicly, his platform is status quo with some reforms. "Return to normal" to summarize it. Never underestimate idealistic romanticism. 16:03, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, Biden has the "ongoing disaster" advantage usually needed to unseat an incumbent president. Given how remarkably close this election was compared to polling(which suggested a Biden landslide) I honestly think Biden would have lost without covid.-Flandres (talk) 16:24, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Already trying to start shit, huh? Pass. 16:33, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 100% yes I am. I'm so annoyed at the right-wing death spiral the country is in, and even now as it looks "promising" that the real totals will oust trump, I feel no hope that any of the damage he has done will be undone.  I could say I understand conservatives are more at fault than centrists, but I don't actually think that's true.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:03, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Eh, Clinton unseated Bush, and his "ongoing disaster" was "we just won the Cold War". Turns out people hate taxes. CoryUsar (talk) 17:23, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Wasn't there a recession in the early 90s? Sure, it was not the biggest disaster ever but it still left a lot of people unhappy with Bush.-Flandres (talk) 17:34, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It ended in March of 1991, and was in part due to the end of the Cold War (defense industry layoffs). I mean, if Crispr fulfills some of the more extreme promises and cures cancer, there'd be a recession from all the oncologists out of work, to say nothing of funeral homes seeing a slowdown, a pension crisis, psychics and other charlatans finding a shortage of rubes.  At least the life insurance industry would see record profits. CoryUsar (talk) 17:47, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

You know what?
If you can't perform a simple lesser evil calculation on Trump v. Biden, and come out overwhelmingly (and vote) in favour of Biden, then your opinions on politics and ethics can be safely ignored in perpetuity. It's obviously sad this clearly applies to millions of Americans, and flat-out fucking terrifying that a significant chunk of them occupy positions on the left of the political spectrum, but ignoring them and their dangerously dumb opinions is still absolutely the right thing to do, and I intend to commit wholeheartedly to it. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 21:53, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ^This. All fucking day. I generally consider myself highly progressive but people who can't or are unwilling to perform the Biden/Trump calculus and come out against a fucking horrible monster are a huge part of how we ended up in this mess in the first place. Take your protest vote (or stay home no vote) and fuck right the fuck off. 138.207.198.74 (talk) 23:05, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It's called letting perfect be the enemy of good, and it's stupid, shortsighted, selfish, and counterproductive as hell. Zontar (talk) 05:52, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree with this current vote. A vote for Jo Jorgenson was a vote for Biden, saying stay home and don't vote is nutso bonkers.  Very similar to a lot of what's been said, I had a guy say he's smarter than 50% of America based on the popular vote.  I told him I voted Biden, and he almost lost his mind.  In what world, this guy interacts with me on a daily basis, I considered voting Green in 2016 and didn't, I'm a long haired hippie social justice video game playin activist in my spare time.  Still, I said "Well, ok, but I voted Biden."  "Why!?!  Why would you vote Biden?" "Because I'm done with Trump."  "Is that the only reason?" "Unfortunately, yes."  Then he went absolutely OFF saying all campaigns are gonna be run from basements now because that's the winning strategy, that he'd think of me first when we're all out of jobs, that we're not going to get the vaccine for coronavirus now, that the California democrats are in charge of everything now and that we'll see 3 new presidents.  I took the whole tirade, asked "What vaccine? There's no political gain to HAVE a vaccine and refuse to give it out.  Does Trump HAVE a vaccine and is waiting to give it out til after the election?"  "Well, no, but you saw Harris, she said she wouldn't take the Trump vaccine."  "I don't think politicians believe or mean every word that comes out of their mouths."  Then I did the punch them in the head thing, and he was like "You couldn't kill Trump with a punch" and I was like "ok, weird thing to argue, but you're probably right."  Some of these people on the right are fucking misinformed.  ...About the strength of my punch.  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 06:15, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * One lesson from the results appears to be that there are huge swathes of the country that march in ideological lockstep. Rural areas that plumped for Trump don't contribute many votes to the total, but out there some 65% to close to 90% of the population rallied behind their messiah.  The only place where the Democrats seem to have a similar tribal thing going is in DC.  It doesn't help that Democrats are still running on 'bipartisanship' and similar things that might persuade those who think that rational discussion is still possible.  And the Republicans in power play hardball, while Democrats in power play whiffleball.  They don't get that they're locked in an existential struggle with an internal invasion of barbarians. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 21:23, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Trump's down to a lead of under 4000 in Georgia and they're still counting. It's going to turn. The difference is going to be so small that he'll demand and will get his recount. He'll get one in Wisconsin too, but even Scott Wanker is telling Trump that he's dreaming about turning Biden's victory of over 20,000. Trump might still turn Arizona back, but with the numbers from Pennsylvania and Nevada none of these are going to matter (except that Trump absolutely won't turn Wisconsin red). I'm calling it. Biden won.


 * Trump's going to bitch and whine about it for the rest of his life like the overgrown baby he is. But there's nothing he can do about it. Supreme Court isn't going to turn this to Trump. Roberts is definitely going to side with the liberal members on this one and Kavanaugh and Gorsuch (hideous crotchgoblins though they are) are probably going to do so as well. And we need only one of those two supreme jerks. U.S. is getting rid of the tangerine tyrant. Good riddance bad rubbish! 00:33, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * So there has to be a plan to fight Biden next. Or Harris, or whatever nonsense, I am not a Democrat.  I definitely see it as preferable to work with people who don't assume it's all a God plan, but I talked to my Dems are gonna withhold the vaccine guy today in a little less heated kind of way and he's like "I had a Nostradomus translation" and showed me a quarter he got that is, I don't know, celebratory of American Samoa? that has 2020 and bats on it.  I mean, let's get started on American Samoa, sure, I joked I must have been Blue Beamed, and my Q guy actually laughed and I had to explain my joke. I couldn't explain it on the spot, because how the fuck do you explain it?  But these are your neighbors, and they don't have nothing to say just because they disagree or believe absolute nonsense.  And their vote matters too.  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:19, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm hoping I'll have occasion to get a T-shirt that says, "TRUMP LOST. DEAL WITH IT." Turnabout is fair play, after all. Zontar (talk) 04:01, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Nostradamus probably would have called this too if we had only been smart enough to read his words right. That T-Shirt would be dangerous to wear in certain parts of my city who claim going east of one street is just plain dangerous. I'm several blocks south of what they're talking about, but still on that street and I go east of it.  They don't care about their city, their state, or their country.  White flight, they care about a 50's ideal of American culture with a gun in their hands. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:32, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

dogshit

 * Or, maybe, instead of blaming the other side(s) like usual, mayyyybe recognize that some of the "left" strategy hasn't really been working out? I mean, did the BLM movements really helped make everyone understand the plight of racism and police brutality, rather than an image of violence, looting, and anti-white racism (to be compared to protests in Belarus or Hong Kong)? Did the denial of empathy, that white voice actors can dub non-white character, straight actors play gay characters, or basically that people (usually cis white men) *can* understand and emphatize with other people really worked? Does the push towards rewriting the definition of "racism" so that white people can't be victim of it really worked towards a more inclusive society? Does the polemics on "manspreading" really worked to gather a wide support for feminism? Does the banning of some sitcoms episodes like the Community DnD episode because of "blackface" really worked, or did it make the whole movement look hysteric? Did the focus on identity politics and trying to put everyone in little cultural boxes so "cultural appropriation" is avoided really worked towards building support to progressive ideas?

Because, from a french social democrat point of view, it didn't work.2001:861:5700:5150:9884:C936:BFBD:E389 (talk) 11:38, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a discussion about idealism vs. solipsism, not politics. You may want to review your open tabs and pick the correct Facebook thread to copy paste and troll in the future. Haste makes waste! 72.184.174.199 (talk) 14:39, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * maybe asking nicely to please stop killing us mr police pretty please with sugr on top, and may be please stop carting us off of to be railroaded into the brutal penal system and honest to goodness slavery, just hadnt worked? maybe decades of the same problems, there is nothing else to do but take to the streets?


 * maybe historical racism and its insidious ever present current varieties infecting every facet of society might make some folk a little touchy over racist depictions of black people that has a long and storied history of racism itself? maybe white folk taking on roles that has a white person pretending to be black, asian, or as straight white folk pretending to be gay for a part has much more to non white characters absent from film and tv, and non white actors barred from movies and films, white actors playing them, instead? maybe the supposed lack of empathy is not the failure to recognise white or straight actors can have diverse talents, but that from it inception hollywood refused to recognise non white actors can have diverse talents, refusing to employ non white actors to play roles of non whites, only the most crass stereotypes when they were allowed.


 * maybe the lack of empathy is wringing ones hands over white people not getting roles they need boot polish on there face to pull off or that thinking the pulling of one episodes of tv show is a problem in the face of decades of police murder and institutional racism blighting the lives of so many black americans since the civil war? maybe whats really happening here is your rhetorical questions are dogshit.


 * if blm has been any kind of failure, its for the same reasons everything else that was tried failed - people in power and far too many white folk refuse to admit racism is even problem, refuse to make any kind of real or effective change for the better amid the sea of legislation that marginalise and criminalise black people. these people will not and have not given an inch aided by a political system that is intractable and by design discriminates and prevents participation by too many.
 * if blm has failed, then what? whats not been tried? armed insurrection? AMassiveGay (talk) 14:51, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * These protests are them asking nicely. When they fail, they'll just start killing people. I say when, because let's face it, with morons acting like peaceful protests (which are covered under the first amendment, not like the right wing cares) are "too far", well, it's not like they have the perspective needed to actually negotiate. Also, imagine thinking BLM is a far-left movement... Talk about out of touch with reality... 17:54, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I forget who said it best, but basically, we tell Black people they should protest more peacefully, but when Kolin Kaepernick does exactly that we tell them that's also wrong. CoryUsar (talk) 18:16, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't think the case with TV portrayal applies to voice actors. I mean it doesn't matter who does the voice of a certain character as long as they are good. It's not the case with live action where it does matter who the actor is.Machina (talk) 19:07, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That's an audience perspective, not a creative perspective. From the perspective of someone working in that industry, yeah, it might matter that most if not all of their co-workers are white. It might matter that historically and contemporarily roles often go to white people over non-white people. These things matter from those perspectives. 13:54, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * and if the voice actor is actually well known, or involves a comedy accent then everyone knows about it good or not AMassiveGay (talk) 19:29, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

In hindsight
Richard Nixon or Donald Trump? Anna Livia (talk) 17:21, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Jesus that's a tough one. I'll go with Nixon since at the very goddamn least he stepped down. Evilatheistheathen (talk) 01:06, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Nixon. Established the EPA, OSHA, legalized abortion, opened up China. CoryUsar (talk) 17:36, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Nixon had the decency to resign when he got caught. There is nothing redeemable from the Trump administration. Nothing.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 17:41, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a tough call in my opinion. I suppose it depends on if you want your corrupt, power hungry, wannabe autocrat to be smart and sneaky or dumb and obvious. 17:49, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Nixon. Trump was uniquely destructive as far as presidents go.-Hastur! (talk)  18:36, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * And what would RN make of DT? Anna Livia (talk) 19:11, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * In terms of private, personal views at least, they would actually have a lot in common. I say this having watched all the Nixon tapes that I could(there is a playlist of them on YouTube).-Flandres (talk) 19:14, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course Nixon got some good stuff done too as Cory mentioned, whereas Trump has been an unmitigated disaster. But our article on ze presidents points out that "Reagan, Bushes, Trump: All ran, and won, on a platform of "anti-establishment" because Nixon proved you can't trust politicians." Would we even have had Trump if not for Nixon?  19:37, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Nixon hands down. As pointed out by, Nixon had the honor to step down after being caught. --RZ94forMod202 (talk) 00:10, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Trump in Nixon era republican climate. Current climate, Nixon would have hit home base, no tag.  Are we playing tag?  Trump has to be told to not pardon his dicks, he's already done it.  Wasn't their fault I guess. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 08:00, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

What about Donald Trump and Lyndon Johnson? (Apart from 'a lot of bleeping out/expletives deleted' when on air/recordings released.) Anna Livia (talk) 13:10, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Johnson, no flipping contest! Yes, getting U.S. more deeply involved in Vietnam was terrible, but pretty much everything else he did was great. Civil Rights act alone is enough to raise him leagues above Trump. And Trump has a lot of blood on his hands too. 13:25, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If you were talking about Andrew Johnson it'd be closer. But probably Trump's still worse. James Buchanan though...Trump hasn't caused a civil war yet. And he won't. There might be some local bloodshed coming from Proud Boys and Boogaloos, but it's not going to be enough to start a 2nd Civil War. There's no feasible rebel army that could stand up to actual U.S. military and National Guard, and General Mark Milley, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said nearly 5 months ago that he won't let Trump stage a coup (and that he's ashamed that he took part in the Lafayette Park photo-op). Congrats Buchanan, you get to remain the absolute worst president in U.S. history. 14:23, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I would hold off on saying Buchanan is worse until we see the long term effects of the Trump administration. Will the damage from this mostly be recovered from by the end of the decade? Or will future historians look at this as a turning point is studying the decline of the USA?-Flandres (talk) 15:43, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * As a compliment to Buchanan, at least he knew he was a shit president. Trump is the physical embodiment of Dunning-Kruger effect. 15:46, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Can Trump actually achieve the level of understanding required to show the DK effect?
 * And what became of the off-key-trumpery-trumpet's wall - was he describing his version of the Pink Floyd album? Anna Livia (talk) 16:26, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Trump has the cognizance to claim he's The Greatest President Ever™. Reality has no access to his brain, which is kind of DK effect in a nutshell.
 * Trumps wall fell to his incompetence and the fact that Mexico wasn't going to pay for it. Pink Floyds wall fell to the realization that the "bleeding hearts and artists" outside of it were the ones who truly care for you. It's disgraceful to even compare that musical and lyrical masterpiece to Trump administration. 16:37, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

LOUD NOISES
BREAKING FROM SCOTUS: Justice Alito has issued an Order than any ballots received after after 8pm on election day in PA be segregated and secured - and if counted, counted separately. There is a petition pending before SCOTUS. Alito orders opposing side to reply by 2p Saturday. Trump has won. 2001:8003:59DB:4100:FD20:322E:10D8:828E (talk) 01:39, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Still in the denial stage? Let me know when you get to rage so I can laugh. 01:45, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * One of us is in denial. 2001:8003:59DB:4100:FD20:322E:10D8:828E (talk) 01:59, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed. But only one of us is repeatedly posting the same thing in an attempt to will a personal preference into being. Also, only one of us (me) has researched psychology and social behavior enough to evaluate the other. Anyway, I look forward to your conspiracies explaining why Trump totes won but the Dems and deep state or whatever won't admit it. 04:00, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * And it won't matter if Biden hangs unto Nevada, Arizona and Georgia (which puts him over 270).--Cms13ca (talk) 04:04, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

The cope is real. CaptainCrackCocaine (talk) 13:30, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The cope? How are you coping with it? 13:45, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

The Democrat Party has called President Trump’s election illegitimate for four years. Now they’re mad that he’s returning the favor.
Since President Trump’s election, the results of which they have never for a moment been willing to accept or validate. Hillary Clinton has spent Trump’s entire tenure crying foul to anyone who will listen, branding Trump an “illegitimate” president who “stole” the election. Nearly every Democrat on the national stage has echoed these sentiments. The rest have aided the slander through their silence. There is, once again, no basis for any of this. Donald Trump was elected fairly and legally, and no accusation of “collusion” with Russia was ever proven despite ceaseless attempts by an opposition party determined to punish Trump for the crime of having become president in the first place. Democrats have never taken kindly to losing, nor have they been willing to admit when it happens — just ask Stacey Abrams. Or better yet, Al Gore. In 2000, Gore refused to concede the presidential election until a Supreme Court decision forced his hand in mid-December of that year. Bush was tagged as an election thief thereafter, and the label stuck at least until the media started rehabilitating his image in order to use their newfound respect for him as a bludgeon against Trump. These are all things to keep in mind as you watch the media and Democrats hyperventilate over Trump’s “shocking” and “unprecedented” claims that the 2020 election is being stolen from him. Whatever you think of the fraud allegations being made by the Trump camp, it must be said that the shock Democrats are feeling is the shock of having the shoe on the other foot. If Trump’s cries of illegitimacy and vote theft are knowingly incorrect, the ruse is unprecedented only because it’s a Republican pulling it this time. 1.136.109.132 (talk) 05:25, 7 November 2020 (UTC)


 * That's not exactly true. If you want to take it to popular vote again, you're welcome to. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:33, 7 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I know you're trolling, you silly aussie you, but cope harder bitch. CaptainCrackCocaine (talk) 13:29, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * How many trolls do we have here? --RZ94forMod202 (talk) 15:15, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi. I am one... 104.225.183.70 (talk) 17:54, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

The Orange Muppet is outta here
It seems that Joe Biden has won the US presidency (or, at the very last, has a damn good chance based on the unofficial results so far), making Trump the first one-term president since the 1990s. And, if I may: about damn time. Idiocracy (talk) 16:33, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The AP and NBC have projected Pennsylvania will go to Biden. They Project he is now President Elect of the USA.Ariel31459 (talk) 16:45, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * About time. Thank Goat for that. 16:54, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm still amazed how quickly PA shifted. I know experts had been talking about "blue shift" for weeks but I didn't think it would be that swift. I'd have put PA in the red column as late as Wednesday night. Guess that's why I don't work on one of the "decision desks". NervousWreck96 (talk) 16:57, 7 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Goat save us all. Now we'll have the leader we need. One who will get us rid of COVID and foil Trumpler's best efforts to further divide our country and cause Civil War II. The Divided States of Hysteria are dead; long live the United States of America! -- Goatspeed. 18:45, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There are people who believe it's because of a significant amount of "fraudulent" votes. My parents seem to be among those who believe it. How DO you respond to that? --DoomTay (talk) 17:24, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Ariel31459 (talk) 17:50, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The conspiracy theory is that what's been going on is "ballot harvesting". Basically, you go to a bunch of apartment buildings, door to door, and give people a ballot and offer to mail it in yourself, all they have to do is just fill in the ballot.  Basically, the people who normally wouldn't bother showing up on election day or be bothered to go pick up a mail-in ballot themselves.  You only target the areas that'd likely vote your party.  This is illegal because then you could throw out votes you don't like, you are only supposed to collect ballots of people you know personally, and even then only up to 10 ballots (varies by state), but go prove that it was being done.  Also, go prove it wasn't being done. CoryUsar (talk) 18:57, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The conspiracy theory is that what's been going on is "ballot harvesting". Basically, you go to a bunch of apartment buildings, door to door, and give people a ballot and offer to mail it in yourself, all they have to do is just fill in the ballot.  Basically, the people who normally wouldn't bother showing up on election day or be bothered to go pick up a mail-in ballot themselves.  You only target the areas that'd likely vote your party.  This is illegal because then you could throw out votes you don't like, you are only supposed to collect ballots of people you know personally, and even then only up to 10 ballots (varies by state), but go prove that it was being done.  Also, go prove it wasn't being done. CoryUsar (talk) 18:57, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

It is over.
We have triumphed. I hereby post glorious music to commemorate our victory.

https://youtu.be/l3w4I-KElxQ 16:47, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Ladies and Gentlemen
We got him. — Jeh2ow Damn son!  17:22, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Down goes Trump! 17:24, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * WOOP! 17:25, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Despite what Trump supporters say, Trump is not a patriot. Trump makes Benedict Arnold look like a patriot. --RZ94forMod202 (talk) 19:02, 7 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Donald, you're fired! -- Goatspeed. 19:11, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Trump hates America. Glad we finally got rid of him. 20:51, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

What do we think of market socialism?
Personally I think it's the most likely form of socialism to succeed. The main problem the attempts at socialism during the 20th century had was that central planning simply can't work as it doesn't take the complexity of humans or the need for competition within a market into account. Market socialism solves both of these problems and gives workers far greater control over the means of production than they currently have in capitalist societies and what workers had in centrally planned communist societies. On top of this I imagine it'd reduce the amount of environmental damage done by businesses because at the end of the day you're gonna be a lot less likely to vote to dump toxic waste in a lake when it's your ass dumping the toxic waste in your local lake. But what do ye think? Evilatheistheathen (talk) 00:12, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It might work like that. I am not an economics expert. It sounds good in theory. --RZ94forMod202 (talk) 00:16, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah I feel you. I don't know much about economics either(We're not doing economics til like the third year of my college course) but I do think that the main flaws that plagued self declared socialist countries over the years could be addressed by this type of system. Evilatheistheathen (talk) 00:21, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it's more likely to succeed as a replacement to capitalism than other current competing systems, though I probably differ from most anti-capitalists in that I don't post-capitalism will look like what most of us are expecting. 01:34, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Just out of interest what do you think it'll look like? Evilatheistheathen (talk) 01:46, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Like the current system, but with foundational changes. This is based on what I understand happened historically when capitalism replaced mercantilism. It's possible I'll be wrong though, so keep that in mind. 01:53, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh ok. So do you think this system will look like a slightly more left wing Iceland or will the foundational changes be much more radical? Evilatheistheathen (talk) 01:59, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, that's a bit more complicated. In my view for capitalism, the current system, to be abolished it would necessitate the abolishment of the current class structure. In that regard, almost everyone would likely become what is now called middle class, though our current understanding of class structure would probably cease to apply. That's assuming said abolition occurred due to a stable economic system. Which I also regard as crucial to replacing capitalism. The working classes (technically there are multiple types of prols) would need a way of going toe-to-toe with the wealthy in business disputes. As for market systems as a whole, I think those are likely here to stay for the foreseeable future. Regulations to those systems would be needed as well. So yes, beyond saying "Nordic social democracy but more so" Those are some prescriptions I think will be required to replace the current system with a new one. Bear in mind that I also believe that whatever successor system emerges will also eventually be replaced, and so forth and so on. 02:18, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * So, I just heard about a thing. A truck driver for a large company was caught driving drunk, and he is union.  The union must fight for his employment, despite the fact that he was being a huge jackass, driving an 18 wheeler while drinking.  It wasn't me this time, I swear.  But the problem is, the union is going to fight for his job, he's going to lose his CDL, but he might keep working for the company and some people who work for the company don't like that.  And, honestly, I'm not mad that he's losing his position but keeping his job, demoted back to loading or whatever, but he did put many people and the company at risk by driving a fucking 18 wheeler while drunk, I'm with it on that complaint.  Collective bargaining has it's practical nuances too. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 07:18, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah ok. Yeah I could see that happening what with automation and the implementation of UBI programs in many countries. It's hard for me to visualise a world like this but I guess that's the point of conversations like this. Trying to visualise worlds that don't exist yet. Evilatheistheathen (talk) 02:07, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * What's his history of drinking? Should a man starve because he has an addiction? Sure, he put others in danger and should be punished for it, but that doesn't mean he should be out on street. On the other hand, the union should represent the interests of all workers and should not put the well-being of one over the well-being of many. A difficult decision, made more difficult by how weak unions are in this country. All that being said, how does this fit into the above discussion of large scale macro-economic philosophy? 13:41, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * is this the union 'fighting for his job' or the union ensuring one of its members has legal representation at an industrial tribunal? a unions job is to ensure their members are treated fairly, that includes when their members fuck up. its the same principle as rapists getting legal representation in courts. even monsters deserve a fair crack of the whip AMassiveGay (talk) 18:49, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Biden/Harris speech
It was absolutely amazing. Harris and Biden showed real class unlike a Certain Orange. How many of you watched?

On a side note- what is with the rising number of trolls? It seems that in the past week a mountain of trolls have arrived. --RZ94forMod202 (talk) 02:11, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Election time always brings orcs, trolls and goblins out of their basements. It'll get better once the orange oligarch is forced to concede. 02:20, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Just finished watching it. I particularly enjoyed Tom Pettys "I Won't Back Down" showing up afterwards. Just because his estate made a point of denouncing Drumpf for using the same music. They probably approved it here.
 * Other than that, basic bullshit ripped from previous presidents. Still better than Trump. 02:58, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Somehow Biden is lefty…
… and also somehow according to an idiot in other site Europe is far left, with colonists having broke from England because they were fed up with them –I guess fed up of gun control, welfare, etc. I really wonder what is wrong for these people, who consider lefty someone who in Europe and not just there would charitably be center-right.

As for Biden himself, I dislike his support of free trade. I suspect for example TTIP negotiations could come back, this time with the excuse of it being a booster for the economy after the mess that is leaving the pandemic. Plus maybe yet another attempt and SOPA & PIPA. Panzerfaust (talk) 08:14, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Uh oh...it happened again...
A knife-wielding attacker shouting "Allahu Akbar" beheaded a woman and killed two other people in a terrorist attack at a church in the French city of Nice on Thursday. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 2001:8003:59DB:4100:2C73:3316:C9B2:24A / talk
 * Let me guess, you're trying to imply that all Muslims are murderous savages. I'd like it if you actually did more than shitpost for once. 18:17, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Now imagine he had a gun. And he was white. Oh wait...-RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:07, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I have to say, the headline "Offensive Charlie Hebdo cartoon pushes Turkey-France tensions into overdrive." from NBC is quite an impressive exercise in mental gymnastics. Based on that, you'd almost think people have the right to behead people because someone offended their delicate feelz or something. I don't remember anyone framing white supremacist nutcases in such generous terms of late. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい ) 19:10, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Trump is just adept as Erdogan at absurdly overreacting to minor slights from overseas. That's how international relations works with populist egotistical hatemongers. (See also China, Israel, and Russia. And all these leaders have killed people in response.) --Annanoon (talk) 15:24, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I mean, I live in the Netherlands, which isn't the same as France, I know, but it's close enough for this stuff to still hit home because of it being Europe. I can't speak for everyone of course, but this happening twice in the same country in as many weeks is pretty fucking notable, and it causes anti-immigrant and anti-muslim sentiments to spike.
 * Turkey is regarded in these parts and from what I can tell is across Europe as being the gatekeeper for middle-eastern refugees to some extent (mainly due to the Syrian conflict) and the truth is that from what I know that they're not doing that task properly in accordance with what was agreed upon. This results in Turkey's relationship being extremely rocky, which along with Erdogan's authoritarian thin skin causes this awkward situation where the EU has to appease him just enough to prevent having to deal with shitloads of refugees, but at the same time can't blame him for not doing that job properly because the alternative is far worse.
 * those are attacks in the US and New Zeeland specifically. Lone wolf terrorism here is almost exclusively done by jihadist types, not typically by far rightists. It's kinda fucking tone-deaf to use this as an argument for the situation here.
 * Even when I look at the opinions in my near vicinity (most of my friends are pretty on the lefter end of the spectrum), I can't help but notice that when this stuff happens, anti-muslim sentiments tend to spike (usually gets worded as that immigrants should assimilate more into our culture on the left, instead of the outright pre-emptive rejection of immigrants on the right). 20:57, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You're a bit late. This has been in the WIGO for most of the day now. 19:17, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure. France / Macron is rightfully pissing off a few hot-headed Islam folks by (IMHO) rightfully doubling down on the French secularism tradition. So you're going to get a few religious idiots doing stupid things like this. (Based on your Supreme Court "win" post, however, I would suspect that French style secularism is the last thing you want.) 72.184.174.199 (talk) 19:32, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Muslims are second class citizens in France. Far too often secularism is just a dogwhistle for rabid Islamophobia. Piss off, bigot. — Oxyaena Harass  22:13, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Secularism was around well before Jihaddists started blowing things up and decapitating people in France. Secularism is a value well worth defending and the right to criticise religion (a set of ideas remember) and ridicule the shit out of it is not up for negotiation. Yes, it is used by some as an excuse to be Islamophobic Oxy but keep in mind that literally every religion and ideology (including the political ones) are ridiculed all the time in France, far more than Islam is. So yes, threatening to kill people if you ridicule your set of ideas and values is not going to work and of course the President is going to double down on secularism. I wish the President would at the same time say how he would address Islamophobia and deal with what you rightfully point out is the "second class citizenship" of most Muslims in France. But as far as many Western European countries are concerned, secularism is not up for debate and no exceptions will be made, nor should they. All religions should be fiercely critiqued and even ridiculed for the stupid toxic shit-fests that they are. Shabi  DOO  02:13, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Evilatheistheathen (talk) 11:29, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Imagine going so far radical left that you loop around to "secularism is bad, actually". Horseshoe is real! 18:06, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * point me to where i said that. I said secularism is often a dogwhistle for islamophobia in france. — Oxyaena Harass  20:50, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. The President of France is accused of Islamophobia for speaking of French secularism, by Islamists. Secularism is a cultural standard in France. Should they change that to make Islamists feel more at home?Ariel31459 (talk) 03:24, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Read this. Or read the Wikipedia article. It's not that hard. — Oxyaena Harass  13:01, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I read the article about burkinis, and although secularism is mentioned, it is in context and does not imply what you suggest: that "secularism" is a dog-whistle. Public display of religious sentiment has been openly opposed in France since the Reign of Terror. You may recall that by the end of that decade (1792-) about thirty thousand catholic priests had been expelled from France, many hundreds murdered, tortured or imprisoned, by irate peasants who had had it with the first estate. Don't expect French secularists to keep quiet about anti-secularism.Ariel31459 (talk) 15:48, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Catholics were literally exempted from the "push for secularism" in france this time around. — Oxyaena Harass  17:28, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Because this time, they weren't the ones attacking the secularism of the state and society. It's quite simple really. The majority of us frenchs are anti-sexism and anti-homophobia. The sexism and homophobic claims are carried by muslims most of the time in France. Therefore, we oppose islamism. Don't worry, the catholics got a punch during the gay marriage act too. It's so weird that oppressive, sexist obligations like the burkini are being defended by self-avowed feminists.2001:861:5700:5150:8809:6FE7:9B95:1025 (talk) 06:43, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Read this and tell me what France is doing is okay, also no comment on the bigotry and discrimination regular Muslims face in France, including the recent attack on two Muslim women near the Eiffel Tower? — <font color="Purple">Oxyaena <font color="Red">Harass  17:51, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Also the Catholic Church regularly spews out homophobic and sexist bigotry on a regular basis. Take your Islamophobic, racist ass elsewhere. — <font color="Purple">Oxyaena <font color="Red">Harass  17:56, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Speaking as someone who is both French and whose career has led them to know a great deal of Muslims, I'd say that while I support my home country's secularism there are some things they do that violate personal freedom, such as bans on hijab in school and bans on the burqa. Not only do I consider this an assault on free speech but it I also consider it an offensive assumption that Muslim women do not have agency.-Hastur! (talk)  17:55, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Pointless Polls
Why is it when I initially added extra choices, it screwed up? I fixed the issue but is the algorithm set to where new options are added at the bottom of the poll? --RZ94forMod2020 (talk) 21:30, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Lessons Learned (US election)
Republicans:
 * 1) Don't fuck with war heroes. Private Bonespurs had the nerve to insult John McCain, saying "real heroes don't get captured" or somesuch.  That's what cost him Arizona and their 11 electoral votes, and probably didn't help in other states.
 * 2) When there's a pandemic, don't constantly give conflicting information, and don't turn basic safety precautions such as masks into a political issue
 * 3) When it comes to personal information such as taxes, assume it's going to be leaked at the worst time, so leak it in advance so that it becomes "old news" by the time the election comes around
 * 4) If you are going to suppress votes, don't do it in such a blatant manner as to make the news and piss people off, that just encourages them to vote when they otherwise would've stayed home
 * 5) If you are concerned about ballot harvesting, just be thorough; change the law so everyone is mailed an absentee ballot to return.
 * 6) For the love of god, stay off social media. Or better yet, hire an intern specifically to handle twitter, so you don't constantly say stupid shit on it.

Democrats: CoryUsar (talk) 16:27, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Middle America sees BLM and the center of the town on fire, and doesn't sympathize with the protesters. It's irrelevant if they are "right" or "wrong" for being scared, but you have to actually do something to assuage their fears.
 * 2) The public views adjusting the number of supreme court justices with outright terror. It was the very thing that FDR still gets hammered on.  Don't lead people on about it, give a blunt answer.
 * 3) Always bring your A-game, with some real candidates.
 * 4) Always have a clear vision, otherwise your opponent can decide what your vision is for you
 * 5) For the love of god, never let your supporters try to convince others to "vote their conscience, not their interest" (had to deal with this personally). That's literally admitting that electing you will not be in their interest.
 * I think a lot of these "lessons" are neglecting the existence of Black voters, who's votes in MI, PA, WI, and MN reestablished control of the Midwest, and culturally Mexican/Central American voting groups in AZ that put in the work to flip that state. Additionally the lessons you seem to present for the Dems is a messaging thing, which is difficult when the opposition lies with such conviction and so often, the message doesn't break through.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 17:48, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't consider people who fought in imperialist wars to be "heroes." — <font color="Purple">Oxyaena <font color="Red">Harass  18:03, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Whom you (don't) consider a hero is not at issue here, Oxyaena. ... McCain did not make policy in any case; he elected to serve place himself under military discipline in service to his country, and as a consequence, he suffered years of mistreatment in a foreign prison. Even if he hadn't made that choice, he might well have been drafted and sent to 'Nam to suffer the same fate, or worse. Quite a few people were, you know. Zontar (talk) 14:22, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The fact that people on the left felt the need to defend looters is mindbogglingly stupid. Like, it would have been so easy to just say "looting is bad but black lives still matter."  Instead I see so many liberal talking heads trying to empathize and justify looting.  Dude, the looters don't give a shit about black lives or social justice.  There will always be opportunists showing up to these protests.  Moreover, #defundthepolice was a stupid slogan and a stupid idea.  Police departments don't have budget so big that reducing them allows us to enact true systemic change.  Calls to defund the police in favor of funding more social services are at best naive, and quite likely just a petty tit for tat.  It'd actually make more sense to INCREASE police funding, providing more training (say, instead of sending unarmed social workers on calls, how about we hire social workers and train them as cops, and vice versa?), and maybe explore more nonlethal technology (although we would definitely need more restraint training there).  And unfortunately, this was not the resounding rebuke of Trumpism we hoped for.  Nearly half the country still very much believes in Donald Trump.  We have to remember that.-Hastur! (talk)  18:33, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 2 things. First, most people, especially those who had the most TV airtime, never supported looting, or vandalism. While there are those who seek to justify it, it's a message that has never received any real credibility, which is why Biden repeatedly emphasized his support for social justice movements, but not looting or vandalism. Second, "defund the police" is a clumsy way of explaining a larger problem, that we rely on armed law enforcement to solve many of societies ills we have chosen to ignore. Armed police respond to mental health emergencies, unhoused people and domestic disputes, with the same level of violence that they respond to robberies and murders. More training requires more funding, as does increasing the size of police forces to include unarmed social workers and mental health professionals. The larger goal of the movement, is to reduce the crime and punishment strategy that has failed to address the root cause of issues. Yes, it's clunky, but it makes more sense than "Build the Wall" or "Make Liberals Cry" or "Make America great Again".-RipCityLiberal (talk) 18:51, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "Armed police respond to mental health emergencies, unhoused people and domestic disputes, with the same level of violence that they respond to robberies and murders." Anecdotal, but yeah, this is true. Cops will respond to a domestic fight with guns drawn and immediately begin yelling that they'll shoot if not obeyed. 18:59, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * RipCityLiberal@undefined Eh, in my circles I saw a disproportional amount of ACAB/Defundthepolice. And I suspect that the right did its best to magnify it.  As for your second point, I don't really have a reply.  Obviously we need some serious reform.  I just don't see it coming from people calling to defund the police.-Hastur! (talk)  19:09, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * (EC)I live in Portland, OR, I have been down there with protesters. There is a unique problem where the worst of the Anti-Capitalist and Anti-Fascist movement get the attention, failing to recognize the social justice movement has it's own goals. It happened just the other night, there were two marches, one was in support of democracy and counting all the ballots, while the other went down 10th avenue and smashed store fronts. Only the ANCAP movement got the media coverage.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:15, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You might want to rethink your acronyms there. 19:25, 6 November 2020 (UTC)


 * It was worse than clunky. It was an outright gift to bad faith assholes who were only too happy to caricature "defund" as "abolish", not least because it resonated with many of those same assholes' desire to "defund" (nuke from orbit) things like Planned Parenthood. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 19:14, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * One. Bad faith actors will act dishonest no matter how you phrase things. That's the point of their contributions. You could rephrase it as "Redirect funding to social services instead of armed cops" and they'd still misrepresent it. I personally don't think "defund" on its own and think "abolish" without further context. Two, from interviews of activists I've watched, it seems that maybe people weren't listening. Three, I'd love to know how big those circles are. Four, How would you have phrased it differently? 19:22, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't have phrased it differently. I don't see police budgets as being sufficient to be able to provide for expanded access to social services.  And we don't have to make it easy for "bad faith assholes."  There is such a thing as good and bad slogans.  This was arguably a bad one.  I suppose if I had to pick a name for that particular idea I'd go with maybe "true justice" to emphasize that our criminal justice system isn't meeting the goals of the movement (although we should bear in mind that for many Americans, the justice system is doing exactly what they want it to do)-Hastur! (talk)  19:36, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, but there's no excuse for making it easy for them. If you're looking for stuff that'll fit on a sign and resonate in the right way, I'd probably go with summat like Murder By Cop Is A Crime, End Murder By Cop, Murder By Cop Must Stop, or Cops Murdered My ______.


 * I suppose you'd want MBC (Em! Be! See!) to enter common parlance and become an instant spur for revulsion amongst right thinking people across the political spectrum. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 20:04, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Only problem is that there a fair number of people that support armed police killing with impunity. would AntiCap be more correct?-RipCityLiberal (talk) 20:46, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

So what, man? The point is to eliminate as much potential for mischaracterisation as possible, and I respectfully submit that it's really fucking hard for even the most determined bad faith eejit to reframe murder as a good thing.

You force them to look like dicks by making them quibble and prevaricate re. the MBCs you're campaigning on, and how they weren't really murder, and then you get to contradict them with the facts of the case(s), and crucially, keep the rhetorical fight on your preferred ground, not theirs. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 23:26, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I think your making rational points, when the debate features an irrational participant. I didn't come up with the phrase, nor do I generally like it. However the purpose was to evoke an emotional response. And in that case it succeeded. Those people who should interest in understanding, found that the argument seems reasonable, as I have presented above. However, those who viewed this movement as a threat, were always going to reduce it to the lowest common denominator: Liberals want to abolish the police entirely, there will be no one to protect you. As for killing with impunity, look at the cops that killed Breonna Taylor, one of whom is now suing her boyfriend. Or the prosecutors who passed on charging the men who executed Auhmad Arbery. Or the silence from the NRA following the killing of Phillando Castile. Killing POC is American as apple pie.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 00:09, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why you keep pointing me to the kinds of dicks who are basically oorah! at the thought of any form of state sponsored violence against black people. There's no debate to be had with them. The point is to link them clearly & conclusively in everyone else's minds to the support of outright murder, and thus destroy whatever lingering shreds of credibility their Lost Cause / Jim Crow-type cop apologia might have. What am I missing here, or otherwise failing to communicate? Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 01:24, 7 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Several things.
 * First, the Dems don't have to appeal to Black people so much as convince them to actually vote in the first place. I'm convinced that's part of why things have been so bad for Black people for so long; politicians don't need to care, and if anything, actually get rid of racial oppression/disadvantages entirely would be against the interests of the Dem party.  But that's just my pet conspiracy theory that I only half believe.  I more strongly believe that both parties have selfish reasons for poverty to continue to exist in the manner it does, but, I digress.
 * Second, "#RethinkPolice" or "DemilitarizePolice" would have been much better slogans. Even "#DisarmPolice" would've been better and that's also ridiculously easy to attack.  "#DefundPolice" can mean any nice thing you want it to mean, but when your slogan requires lengthy explanation as to why it's more nuanced than what it literally says, your slogan is shit. CoryUsar (talk) 21:43, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I say again, "Defund the Police" is just as shitty as anything coming from the GOP. Your own experience determines how you experience the slogan, and whether your willing to learn about whats under the hood.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 22:31, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, anticap would be correct. ancaps are kind of the complete opposite. I see, apologies if I came off as a bit aggressive.  Valid points I suppose, though I still don't really see how people got "abolish" out of "defund". Also, again apologies if I came off a bit aggressively. Apologies to all for not responding sooner, been mowing the yard all day.  01:24, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't read any aggression in anything you posted here, man. Once again, the leap from "defund" to "abolish" is almost entirely a bad faith rhetorical device, but one that is made easier (and superficially persuasive) because of right wing assholes' own extensive efforts to "defund" organisations like Planned Parenthood. Basically, if they themselves seek to attack (rather than reform) organisations by throttling their funding, it's very easy for them to imagine that's what others would intend to do when talking about defunding the police. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 02:26, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I wasn't sure, though in hindsight it sort of seemed (to me) like I was lashing out, hence my apologies. And ah. 02:30, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

any kind of progressive cause or policy is not going to be succinctly summed up into one easy slogan that will not require further explanation. its foolish to think otherwise or to think people are not capable of grasping that a slogan is not ones policy in its entirety. some people just do not want to listen, but any confusion on their part is disingenuous.

some slogans dont require much explanation though - 'lock her up', 'build the wall' for example. if your policies can easily summarised into a slogan like this, it says something about your politics. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:11, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * CND called. Said Ban The Bomb. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 20:15, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * i'll give you that one, but anything else? i'll wager there isnt much else AMassiveGay (talk) 13:26, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Off the top of me head: Whatever it is you're really trying to argue here, I suggest that slogan brevity is not as useful a marker of right-wing dumbfuckery as you seem to think it is. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 14:45, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Free Nelson Mandela
 * Can't Pay, Won't Pay
 * Save The Whales
 * Coal Not Dole
 * Stop The War
 * ok point taken. i didnt think it through. AMassiveGay (talk) 09:51, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Nice one, man. Peace be upon all those who can concede a narrow point gracefully & move on. Fuck knows we could use more of it round here. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 17:47, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I learned quite a bit about my parents' views in the last few minutes
I brought up how Biden said he'll only tax people who make more than $400,000. This has somehow launched into a big talk, some of which I can kinda see, other seem to be begging for counterpoints or is just flat out insane. I doubt anything brought up here would change their minds on anything, but it might give me peace of mind. Or show that I'm the one who's ignorant or maybe batshit insane.


 * They believe there is some election fraud shenanigans going on, mentioning votes from dead people. I brought up that I can only find one instance of an attempt at that and it was thwarted. Their response was that that could mean there are thousands more that slipped through, that there is some "organized plot".
 * Biden may only tax higher-income people, but there will still be "indirect taxes" through prices going up, maybe layoffs and companies moving their operations overseas. Part of that reminds me of how every time a company gets fined for something, someone on Reddit is like "Oh, they'll just bump up bills to customers to make up for it". They also believe Biden is going to go straight to shutting everything down again, which brings me to...
 * COVID. They think "it's been proven that reporting on the coronavirus has been skewed". "We don't know the truth." "How many people actually died?" "Was it worth all the shutdowns and layoffs?". This is definitely something I think is just nuts. Dad would later refer to Walmart as a "petri dish". So it is something to be concerned about after all?
 * My mom works at a bank, which is kinda dependent on seeing people and stuff, but has been working from home for the better part of the year, and she believes her job is in danger. I brought up how New Zealand is pretty much back to normal after after locking down for about 3 months, and she replied that if America locks down for another 3 months, she'll be out of a job
 * They also said, to paraphrase, if you look up "coronavirus" without any numbers, you'll find that it's not much different from the flu, and those who suffered the worst are those with pre-existing conditions.
 * They're fine with wearing masks when need be, but they don't think it's as effective as they're touting. I mistakenly brought up that Georgia had mask mandates and cases went down, only to go right back up when it was lifted (though I was somehow confusing it with stay-at-home orders in Arizona) and they said that cases still have been coming up even with mask mandates.
 * Going back to taxes, my dad said said "I hate to say this, but I hope the Biden voters lose their jobs [due to the impact higher taxes will have on everything] and I'm going to laugh". Wow. Just wow.
 * Thanks to Florida's Amendment 2, minimum wage will be bumped up every year and taxes to go with it. My folks believe the minimum wage isn't supposed to be a livable wage, but for 16-year olds with no work experience or skills, which will eventually put people who took "underwater basket weaving" in college on the same level as my dad who has decades of actual work experience. On a related note, a cousin of mine is now laid off thanks to the pandemic and is on unemployment. Apparently that cousin is making more off of unemployment than my still-employed dad. Sure, that doesn't sound fair, but I feel like there's more to it than he's making it out to be.
 * They mention that people from countries with "universal" healthcare like Canada or Europe fly to America for some treatments because their own country's healthcare doesn't cover it. My mind went to this meme where a guy talks about a hypothetical where he flies from the US for a hip replacement. Turns out "medical tourism" really is a thing
 * An incident from my babyhood seems to be the main reason why my folks believe state-funded medicine doesn't work. When I was a baby, they spent 5 years trying to get me botox treatment for my legs with a state-funded doctor before they gave up, as I didn't quite meet some checklist. They went to a private doctor (who turned out to be the same person) and got me signed up for it practically immediately, with improvements within six months. If it weren't for the point above, I would think of this as an anecdotal thing.
 * According to my dad, socialized medicine would mean that everyone would have a "value" to their life, and any operation that costs more than that "value" would be turned down. I thought universal healthcare is supposed to be the opposite of that?

I'm glad Biden won, but for one reason or another, these next four years are going to suuuuuck. --DoomTay (talk) 23:49, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There's enough bullshit here to fertilize my grandmother's farm. Revolverman (talk) 03:57, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The next four years are going to suck to Americans primarily because it seems extremely likely that Republicunts are going to have majority in the Senate. That means Mitch McCockhead is able to block pretty much any attempts to improve Americans' lives. He's already saying he'll block each and every one of Biden's cabinet nominees, which besides being dickish, is unfathomably stupid. Yeah, let's go and make our country completely nonfunctional for 2-4 years. Sadly he can't be voted out until 6 years from now, but hopefully Democrats manage to find their balls somewhere and run strong progressive candidates against Republican senators in other states in 2022. Until then, it's going to suck. I'm truly sorry for you guys, though I'm happy that you're getting rid of the clementine kleptocrat at least. 00:03, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * My one thing with the Senate is that the margin is *thin*. In particular, if the margin ends up being 49-51, Susan Collins (probably the most moderate cross-over of the Republicans) holds an awful lot of power here... as if there is some issue that Democrats all like and Maine also likes too, irregardless what the "party of no" (McConnell bloc) says there is a chance Collins might vote with the Democrats. Lisa Murkowski is also a relative wildcard if the margin is 48-52. There are a few other Senators (both Democrat and Republican) that I can see along these lines. You're not going to get any sort of sweeping changes with this, but it's plausible to see less of the absolute blockade if a centrist bloc forms that can counter some of the stupidest manuevers. 72.184.174.199 (talk) 19:05, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The name calling is childish and stupid. There are valid reasons that people are members of the Republican party, the US is a big country and a one-size-fits-all approach absolutely does not work when different regions have different needs. CoryUsar (talk) 07:15, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree with it, but let's entertain the "big country" argument. That's why you have state and city governments. The national government is supposed to deal with things like foreign policy...a thing that state governments aren't allowed to. If one branch of the national government categorically blocks each and every cabinet nominee whose supposed to deal with that stuff, United States will effectively stop existing on a world stage. It's just going to turn inwards for four years. Come to think of it, might be a net positive. 11:11, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The Senate and House also control domestic policy. 48 states had raised the drinking age to 21 on their own, but NY and VT were forced to raise it to 21 through the actions of congress.  While in theory the states have a lot of control over their internal affairs, they... really don't anymore. CoryUsar (talk) 17:00, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

They booked the wrong four seasons!
Per one of the commenters on Twitter: "It should be illegal to be this happy." It seems someone in the Trump campaign booked a Four Seasons Landscaping firm instead of the notorious hotel, because of course they did. Artificius (talk) 00:36, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Too funny. Trump needs to admit that he is a loser. --RZ94forMod202 (talk) 02:15, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The even funnier thing is that tRump actually tweeted that that the presser was at the "Four Seasons Total Landscaping"! This Four Seasons is conveniently next to the Delaware Valley Cremation Center, and across the street from Fantasy Island (adult books).
 * Next time he could book a pet cemetery or a garbage dump. --RZ94forMod202 (talk) 13:04, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * How in the world do you screw this up this bad. This is on similar tier to the time where they tried to ask a Russian foreign minister in 2016 if they could engage in collusion, but then failed because they emailed some weight lifter who has a similar name. 21:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The simplest version is that "loyalty" becomes a hiring field, and then the only hiring field when anyone worth a damn disagrees with you. Trump's cabinet is filled with those people. Artificius (talk) 02:49, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Donald Trump Presidential Library
Such a shame that Trump lost the election. Oh well, at least his library will get built four years earlier than usual. I cannot wait to check out the library! Anyone else? 38.121.87.68 (talk) 06:18, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, might be fun to visit it in a Biden/Harris t-shirt and gloat-Hastur! (talk) 06:20, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * He can shove his fictional room full of Bibles into it. Bongolian (talk) 06:36, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The library is opening in 2030 apparently. Trump would be 84 years old by then. I wish him a long, healthy life, and hope he gets to see the library completed. 38.121.87.68 (talk) 06:45, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * In all seriousness, I would be interested to see what they’ve got. By the time it opens they’ll probably have gotten access to some juicy presidential secrets and documents. 07:15, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm... not sure I can picture Trump reading a book. Can anyone here picture Donald Trump reading a book?  I mean, something that isn't mostly pictures. CoryUsar (talk) 07:17, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Trump reading a book is a barrel of laughs. --RZ94forMod202 (talk) 13:12, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it's such a shame that one of, if not the, worst president(s) in the history of this country lost the election. My heart breaks for him. No wait, no it doesn't. 18:25, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Trump has been through a lot in life: bankruptcy, health problems, getting COVID, etc. If Trump didn't win the 2016 election, it would have cost his life. He would still get COVID in this alternate universe, but he wouldn't be able to get the appropriate medical care for COVID at Walter Reed. If getting Trump elected saved at least one person's life (Trump's), then I think it was all worth it. 38.121.87.68 (talk) 18:46, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Concern troll harder. Trump's happiness can go fuck itself. The damage he's done to the country, the people whose blood he shed through his apathy, they matter. He can go fuck off and die for all I care.  19:06, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If Trump had lost in 2016, they would have found traces of polonium in his last-ever Diet Coke in 2017. Zontar (talk) 19:09, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

BoN 38.121.87.68, that is the strangest response to the trolley problem I ever saw. 82.46.167.158 (talk) 19:10, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Trump needs to be locked up in a prison cell, to Hell with his happiness. Trump got his happiness by screwing everyone else over. --RZ94forMod202 (talk) 21:11, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Right on Professor Stick!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GP5Crp3aSgM

The good ole Professor Stick tears Trump a new one. --RZ94forMod2020 (talk) 17:16, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I usually expect a new one being torn to be short, pithy, cutting, to the point. This was long, tedious and rambling - even if it was only 5-6 minutes.  Not new, not particularly illuminating - waste of my time. Aloysius the Gaul 21:37, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

How's this gonna play out..
So Biden is essentially guaranteed to win the electoral vote. But Trump is not shying away from his accusations of voter fraud, and people are talking about the Supreme Court. I understand that for the Supreme Court to do anything a lawsuit would need to reach them, and so far all legal action I have seen him take has been dismissed by local judges. How do you guys think the next few days/weeks will play out? Will Trump concede the election? Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 20:19, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Based off the information I've seen so far, no he will not concede the election. He'll keep trying to litigate the results until the secret service physically hauls him out of the white house. His supporters will likely protest and/or riot, with a small portion such as QAnoners possibly engaging in terrorism. Overall, it'll probably be rocky but Biden will likely end up as president. 20:25, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Could any legal action defer that? The margins we're currently looking at likely won't be flipped by a recount. Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 20:27, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * They need credible evidence of shenanigans first, and with Giuliani leading the charge, their filings are likely to remain Jacob Wohl-tier shite. I'd expect another week or two of performative legal bluster, but nothing that comes remotely close to overturning the results of the election. Trump can (and likely will) piss & moan all he likes, but the actual machinery of government will keep on readying itself for the incoming Biden administration. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 21:12, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I would pay any amount of money to watch Trump get dragged out of the White House literally kicking and screaming. --RZ94forMod2020 (talk) 21:27, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm seeing a lot of conservatives referencing how Al Gore was president-elect for a while until a recount. I haven't been able to fact check all of their assertions, but is there any way the 2000 election is comparable to this one? Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 21:30, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Not unless something weird happens and it suddenly comes down to the results in one state again. Biden's on course for 306 if AZ, GA, NV, and PA all stay in his column. Currently he's leading in those states by approx. 20k, 10k, 30k, and 40k, respectively. For reference, the 2000 election night margin in Florida was 1,784 in favour of Bush, and he eventually won by 537 after the epic clusterfuck of the recount. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 22:10, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * So what we're looking at now is incomparable to 2000? Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 22:12, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The only obvious parallel I can see is that there's going to be some litigation re. the results. That's it, though. Biden's won, for sure, whereas there was genuine uncertainty re. Bush v. Gore. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 22:28, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * At this point, yes. They'd have to outright overturn the election results, and that isn't on the table if the GOP can't sell their fig leaf of voter fraud. 22:46, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Trumpler's litigation isn't half as likely to work as the ever-pessimistic news largely makes it out to be. Even most Republicans disagree with his outrageous assertions, and some states have already dismissed their charges. -- Goatspeed. 23:48, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Are there any ongoing lawsuits as of right now or have they all been dismissed so far? Trump's Twitter is flooded with Fox videos explaining his refusal to concede and a bunch of stuff about legal plans. Doesn't like look it's anything that could get very far though. Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 03:42, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Dunno & don't care, tbh. The more pertinent question is why anyone should expect credible evidence of widespread voter fraud to suddenly emerge, when every study on the subject says it just isn't a thing in the modern era. Not even Kris fucking Kobach could gin up a plausible narrative when Trump put him charge of the voter fraud taskforce a few years ago.

Other relevant considerations re. the (almost entirely) performative nature of Trump's legal strategy here: Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 17:33, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The campaign is soliciting aggressively for donations for the fight, but in the small print, it's allowing itself to use up to 50% of donations to retire campaign debt.
 * Trump's post-presidency plans have long been thought to include some kind of "TrumpTV" media venture. Pending investigations & indictments may or may not nix that, but he has an obvious interest in keeping his base / future audience angry, suspicious, and deeply emotionally invested in him.
 * So the incessant obsessing over voter fraud we're going to see for the next little while likely won't change anything? You seem pretty confident that legal action won't make it past local judges. Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 17:56, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I'm not a lawyer, but as far as I understand, it's not enough to show there was some voter fraud, evidence of which could be faked quite easily. You need to show there was enough voter fraud to interfere with the result, because otherwise the legal remedy you're requesting from the judge is moot (i.e. pointless). Much harder to fake that amount of evidence with the current margins in AZ, GA, NV, and PA. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 18:57, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That may be the case - but reports so far seem to be along the lines that the Trump lawyers haven't presented ANY evidence at all - just "we think it is an issue" Aloysius the Gaul 20:17, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It's pretty obvious that no recount is going to flip the margins in PA, GA, AZ and NV, but I don't know much about the current status of the legal battle to say if there's any way the results in those states could be undermined. I have seen a few lawsuits dismissed by local judges, so a legal battle might be entirely performative. Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 02:48, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Monke
Extremely important and informative video. (SFW) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PipzizkF-SY Monke (talk) 20:33, 10 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Hmm... linking to cringe videos from obscure YouTube channels on the Saloon Bar... You remind me of someone we know very well... -- Goatspeed. 20:38, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That video is the absolute peak of comedy. Monke (talk) 20:46, 10 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Delusions of grandeur too... -- Goatspeed. 20:59, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * How so? Monke (talk) 21:12, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

What happens if President Trump doesn't concede?
Valid question. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 2001:8003:59DB:4100:29CD:48E5:69B5:C02F / talk
 * Actually... nothing. The concession speech and associated acts are, and have always been, a mere formality, a matter of courtesy.  They haven't even been a constant in the electorial history-- the first public one was from Bryan to McKinley in 1896 via telegram, and there's likely examples of the losing party saying "You won, grats" previously that aren't documented.
 * In other words, it doesn't matter if Captain Cheeto refuses to publically concede. He still lost, he's still out of there, and unlike, say, certain South American and/or Eastern European nations, claiming anything else will not help him.  He's still going to go, and it wouldn't be impossible for the Secret Service to be seen carrying him out-- albeit by the back door, to at least try to preserve the dignity of the office, if not the ex-holder. Kencolt (talk) 08:57, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * As if that office has any dignity. — <font color="Purple">Oxyaena <font color="Red">Harass  10:23, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oxy, an office has dignity so long as a majority of people say it does. Most people, unfortunately, view Trump as an anomaly, not as the end point of the problems in our governmental structure. 13:53, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Absolutely nothing. Conceding is a formality, and he will be thrown out of the White House on January 20th. Justarandomliberal (talk) 16:22, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There is also the Portuguese dictator Salazar option (not telling him he has actually been removed from office). Anna Livia (talk) 16:46, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I want to see Trump get dragged out of the White House kicking and screaming like a toddler. --RZ94forMod2020 (talk) 16:47, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * And I want to be married to Salma Hayek, but part of growing up is realizing we can't always have what we want.CoryUsar (talk) 16:53, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * But if we try sometimes... we just might find... we get what we need. Zontar (talk) 18:51, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It's amusing that there are reports here and there that people are pushing Trump to concede to protect his legacy; as if he won't be remembered as the worst President in history, who is responsible for the deaths of thousands Americans by his own negligence and incompetence. On top of the fact that he will likely never, ever disappear from the spotlight until he is literally in the ground. Not to mention, he likely wants to try to run again in '24, and very likely will win that nomination.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:26, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It's what they see as the most likely way to get him to vacate the premises peacefully and/or not waste his lame duck session waving his arms around about illegal votes and Giuliani always being two weeks from a major announcement regarding the same. Artificius (talk) 22:46, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I think for those of us outside the US, it's going to be a bit easier to avoid him after 20 January. Yeah, I know he's not going to shut up ever again. He'll probably have his own TV show, radio show, podcast and YouTube channel as well as still being permanently on Twitter. But nothing he says on any of those platforms will get much coverage outside of the States. From time to time, he'll say something so stupid or offensive that it will be a nine-day wonder in the world media. But at least for a while, the mainstream media will pay about as much attention to him as they do to David Icke. Spud (talk) 04:40, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If he runs in '24, he won't get the nom. The media won't be sofa king we Todd did as to make the same mistake of giving him nonstop free coverage, and even if they did, the Republicans in general will rally around a single semi-decent candidate immediately instead of splitting the vote between 16 different whackjobs. CoryUsar (talk) 16:40, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If he runs in '24 he will win the nomination walking away. What conservative has shown any goddamn spine or separated themselves from Trumpism in any real way? Romney, Murkowski and Collins aren't gonna run. 70 million people voted for Trump, easily 40% of that is all on-board, enough to win the nomination like he did in '16. The only way he doesn't win is if he's under massive investigation and court battles, or if the GOP calibrates it's message enough to separate from Trump, a herculean task considering every single thing he stands for they have been saying quietly for the past 20 years.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 20:29, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Under massive investigation and court battles? Uhh do we really think that's not going to be what happens here? Seriously? 138.207.198.74 (talk) 04:23, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

When will all the states be called?
So PA, GA, NV, and AZ appear to still be counting. Any idea when that might change? Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 07:37, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It'll be over when it's over. 13:49, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think any of the networks have the guts to call Georgia before the recount is done, even though Bidens 12,500 vote lead is extremely unlikely to turn in it. Arizona is in recount territory too, with Biden 15,000 votes ahead, so unlikely to turn there either. Pennsylvania has been called by every network I've checked and the difference in votes is over 0,5% so there's not going to be a recount. North Carolina's going for Trump. Not sure why no-one's called it out yet, but they won't swing a 1.3% lead with just 1-2% of the vote uncounted. They're accepting mail votes postmarked on by election day 'till next Wednesday though, so maybe they just wish to wait that all votes are in before calling it to Trump. 14:02, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The election is basically decided. The only question is what the final Electoral College vote looks like in December and when or if the GOP finally makes Trump accept his loss. 14:28, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There's a race going on. What will come first? All votes counted and declared or a coronavirus vaccine. My money's on Pfizer. --RWRW (talk) 14:52, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * GA is probably not getting called before the recount finishes because it would turn the state into a swing state (thanks to the efforts of Stacey Abrams for actually trying to get people to vote), which would also mean that a lot of the strategy the Democratic leadership uses is slightly bunked. I read several accounts from journalists attempting to cover the election season in Georgia that the Democratic base is just completely abysmally managed in that state (and alledgedly in other Republican strongholds too). Apparenlty even something as basic as getting in touch with a press secretary turned into several cases of getting send around, before being brought in touch with someone who migrated to Spain who had no idea that he was still the press secretary. That's probably why they're being cautious to call GA right now.
 * NV and AZ have both been called by the Associated Press, as well as PA, so I'm unsure what you're talking about with those two. 15:10, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I completely misread NV as NC in Nebuchadnezzars original post. Probably because Nevada being an open question is blatantly ridiculous and I have a selective dyslexia. Biden leads by almost 3 points in Nevada, there's no way that'll turn with almost every uncounted vote being from Clark County.
 * I've been checking the updates from AP and New York Times. NYT hasn't called Arizona yet, but it seems very likely it's going for Biden even after a potential recount. Nevada is no contest.
 * Weirdly neither AP nor NYT has called Alaska either. How is there any question that it's going for Trump/Republicans? 16:50, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Alaska, in a simple procedural sense, takes longer to count all of its ballots.-Flandres (talk) 20:20, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It would just be irresponsible to call Alaska with so many votes left to come in. We all know who's going to take it, but it's too early to call. 20:48, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It's only at 58% so far so I'm stall holding out for the killed a bear in self defense candidate for Senate. A long shot to be sure, but it could change the playing field a bit.138.207.198.74 (talk) 04:26, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Wingnut lolcows are copium motherloads
“There will be a smooth transition to a second Trump administration.” - Mike Pompeo. You heard it here first folks!
 * I actually read it on my homepage feed first-Hastur! (talk) 00:15, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Face it, snowflake: Your precious orange president's sad attempts at stealing this election will fail. He still has no proof of enough "vOwTuHr FrOoWuD" to make Biden win the battleground states he's won by such large margins. -- Goatspeed.   03:07, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ”But but the courts!!” Meanwhile Trump’s frivolous lawsuits are getting tossed out by the handful. 03:31, 11 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Yep. I'll bet this same BoN also calls us libruls "snowflakes" because many of us cried over Trump winning in 2016. (A picture of a crying liberal wearing glasses was promptly turned into a meme, which is now often used by conservatives to "prove" why liberalism is stupid.) 03:53, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

The MC wiki
I am tired of editing there. IPs spam an obscene of redundant info and general spam.--HedvigsenSkreonk here 10:46, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * MC wiki? What is that?  MirrorIrorriM (talk) 12:16, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd assume the minecraft wiki? 12:35, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yep.
 * -- Goatspeed. 19:02, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oddly enough, there was an “MC Wiki” that was operated by MC, one of RW’s most infamous trolls, which has long since been defunct, and I initially thought that’s what this was talking, as me I was thinking “who the hell brought that thing back?” and  probably know what I am talking about. LOL 71.215.100.2 (talk) 20:16, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I remember the MC wars. AceModerator 23:44, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Crap
I am banned from a MC server cuz I am also banned from the servers Discord, which is again because of a rule I was not even aware of. To be fair, I said "Go ahead. Report me." when I was called out (Don't ask me about what I was thinking), and tried to say it was accidental when I was going to be banned, but still, it sucks. The rule in question I broke was the "no-promotions" rule, and I send a link to a server to a couple of people and the server I was banned from's mod. I was banned form the server a while ago. Dunno what to know now.--HedvigsenSkreonk here 15:12, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That's the Marcus Cicero wiki created some time ago.?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:43, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I was banned from the ExplodingTNT discord.--HedvigsenSkreonk here 08:46, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah. So your hobbies are investigating explosives as well as Roman history?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:19, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Irritated growling* ExplodingTNT is a YouTuber. I really liked playing on that server.--HedvigsenSkreonk here 16:14, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It was a real blow to me. It felt like someone took my Nintendo 3DS just cuz I said a curse word I didnt even know was a curse word.—HedvigsenSkreonk here 18:27, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm going to pass down advice that was passed down to me by one of my most trusted friends. "Stay off the boards."  It's newsgroup era advice.  It's something I have to remind myself of constantly.  You don't have to quit, but you have to quit until you worry less about it than you currently do.  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:40, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you explain, please?--HedvigsenSkreonk here 09:45, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Find something to do not involving computing devices or the Internet, and go do it for a month or two. Zontar (talk) 04:15, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * To the newbies who don’t know who Marcus Cicero is, that’s an old troll from almost a decade ago. I’m guessing this is something else because that was long gone. 71.215.100.2 (talk) 20:19, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Bye bye Donnie
Let the door hit you on the way out! Don't come back.

Bet the ballot counting people probably will want an ice cold pint --RZ94forMod202 (talk) 18:59, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * We did it. We won. Now the real work begins. HairlessCat (talk) 19:19, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * As George P. Bush said, "President Trump is the only thing standing between America and socialism" . With Trump gone, America will finally achieve socialism. Amazon workers will finally have a say on how Amazon should be run. Healthcare will be free to all. Big tech companies will no longer harvest personal data for profit. Climate change will be completely solved. America will finally, truly, be great! 38.121.87.68 (talk) 20:13, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I get the feeling you think socialism is something other than what it actually is. Cardinal Chang (talk) 22:02, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Nope. That's not how that works. 20:26, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Lol you dumbass. Take a civics course. 20:50, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Biden is a big money Democrat. Nothing will change from the established status quo of the Obama administration.  Only return to sanity.  MirrorIrorriM (talk) 20:52, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * POV: left wing bias 104.225.183.70 (talk) 21:00, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * do you literally have nothing better to do than troll RW? How sad, just as pathetic as Trump. --RZ94forMod202 (talk) 21:42, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Seems Donald Trump was playing golf when he learned that Joe Biden had won the presidency, making him the second right-wing nutjob to lose his grip on power in a bunker. Cardinal Chang (talk) 21:54, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Biden pumped up the liberal lumps and stumped the Trump chumps. (Try saying that 3 times faster.) -- Goatspeed. 22:06, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Favorite potential headlines for this event? "Cheetos never prosper"? McUrist (talk) 22:34, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * In Nevada last night a group of Trump supporters were praying for a Trump victory at the County Clerk office where the ballots were counted. Bet the county clerk office workers were annoyed. --RZ94forMod202 (talk) 22:52, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * We should troll the Trumpies by telling them that Biden was sent by God and his victory was God’s work. 22:56, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Will someone buy poll workers and ballot counters shots of whiskey or bourbon?
I am certain that they earned it. --RZ94forMod202 (talk) 02:18, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd do it, but it might count as foreign interference with the democratic process. That said, if any vote counter from Philly or Atlanta wants to fly to Finland, I'll treat them to a pint or two. 02:26, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sure they'd like Bourbon coffee after all that work, honestly. 20:44, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Presidential terminology
People are calling Biden "President-elect" - I figure this is convention since it isn't strictly true until the Electoral College makes its decision? I think President-presumptive seems more accurate.

Secondly - y'all over there usually call your ex-Pres's "President" as a matter of courtesy and respect for the institution I believe? Do you think that will continue for his-orange-arseholeness once he joins the ex- ranks?? Given his lack of respect or courtesy it seems to me not doing so would be fitting! Aloysius the Gaul 01:00, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Personally, I never liked the deference that presidents and former presidents get. It seems too much like a pseudo-monarchy for my tastes. With that in mind, I would love to abolish these conventions and treat ex-presidents as if they were simply public figures, who's opinions are no greater than any other public figure. 23:49, 8 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree. Especially since unlike the countries ruled by Trump's buddies Czar Comrade Putin, Kimmy Baby, and "Armenian Genocide Denial" Erdogan, we have this thing called "freedom of expression", which is why we can draw caricatures of Trumpler that make fun of his less-than-average hand/p*nis length, that dead canary he calls his hair, and his pumpkin-like face.  17:49, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

He isn't conceding..
So it looks like there won't be any formal concession. In that case, is this accurate? Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 20:43, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Concessions are not a formal part of the transition process. So not really. It will just add to the world viewing the United States as a much dimmer beacon of democratic values than it used to be. 72.184.174.199 (talk) 21:53, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you sure? I've seen some people saying that it is required. Plus, the Secretary of State just refused the election results. Let me ask a clear question, is there any way Trump could hold on to the presidency? Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 21:57, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It’s not required. This exact question is why I posted that NPR piece to Blogs WIGO days ago. 22:02, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * So what do you think about Mike Pompeo refusing the election results? Is a coup possible at this point? Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 22:04, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Coup is super doubtful. Military would never go along with it. Trump's only shot is for GOP state legislatures to pull off a huge scale manipulation of the Electoral College by appointing die hard Trump loyalist electors who will defy their states' votes. 22:08, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * So you're not concerned about what Mike Pompeo said? Are you condifent that after Jan. 20, we'll be looking at a Biden presidency, and if so, why? Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 22:13, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It's a mere formality. Seriously, if it was required that'd be really fucking stupid, since someone could just refuse to leave and it'd overturn the electoral process. 22:16, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * So you're confident that a smooth transition to a Biden presidency will occur? If so, convince me. Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 22:22, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * (EC, although it pertains to Nebs question too) It also is screwing up the setup for Bidens tenure. Trump has prevented Biden from gaining access to the national security apparatus, which causes issues down the road when it comes to running background checks for administrative appointees, receiving daily briefings so that he's properly installed when he has to replace Trump, gaining access to Confidential Information from intelligence agencies and a lot more crucially (given the current political climate), he's currently not protected by the secret service. It's all not formally required, but Trump not doing it is basically him ensuring that Biden cannot start off his run properly without delays in his tenure (which given that iirc Biden has indicated to only want to run one term, that's a severe setback). 22:26, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Biden has a Secret Service detail and a no-fly zone was recently established over his Delaware home. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 22:31, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Trump is just acting petty. I have every confidence that the military and/or secret service will be willing and able to drag Trump or his corpse out of the white house if need be. 22:37, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * So you're not concerned by the Secretary of State Mike Pompeo's refusal of the election results? Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 22:39, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The electoral college chooses the president. That's the Constitutional law. The Secretary of State has no say. 72.184.174.199 (talk) 22:45, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Is there any way the Trump campaign can legally undermine Biden's lead in the electoral college at this point? Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 22:50, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a different detail though and isn't equipped with the same capabilities as the Presidential Protection Division. Bitch and moan at the supreme court, but I doubt they'll lean to his favor, they already from what I heard threw out one of his PA cases as being junk.  22:54, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I've seen multiple cases get rejected by lower courts, so let's all pray that keeps happening. Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 23:01, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No prayers necessary, they have nothing. He a bad winner and a worse loser. Recounts in GA and AZ won't overcome the difference, and his campaign won't pay for a recount un WI, so it's game over.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:04, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your confidence, but I feel like I won't be able to relax until Biden is being inaugurated. Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 23:24, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There's definitely going to be some death throes. Unsavory pardons, for example.  But at the end of the day I think the powers that be are ready to move on from the Trump era, even if 47% of the country still voted for him-Hastur! (talk)  00:23, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * So you're not worried about Trump subverting the election results? Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 00:39, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * He can try. And there will be conservatives maintaining the narrative that the election was illegitimate, much like Obama was illegitimate.  But few people in positions of power are willing to see such a thorough upheaval as to allow Trump force a stay in power-Hastur! (talk)  01:35, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * What makes you certain of that? Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 01:38, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Your talking a coup. A coup is a high risk high reward play. If you fail, you fail big. And well... The GOP strategists aren't morons. They have no reason cast aside the veneer of respect for the electoral process to maybe keep Trump in power. That's simply too high risk for them right now. 01:50, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The GOP knows Biden won fair and square but are basically kissing Trump's ass to placate Trump's authoritarian base, whose votes they need for Georgia's upcoming special election, and a Senate race in 2022 where Republicans have to defend far more seats. Most of the key election states will certify their election results by Thanksgiving, so I'm hoping that a bit of this illiberal musings die down by then. As a side note, there should be an additional motivating factor for Republicans: if no president is certified by Inauguration Day, based on my reading of the Presidential Succession Act of 1947, who becomes acting President? Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, that's who. 72.184.174.199 (talk) 01:59, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * So you think Trump is fucked but they can't publically acknowledge that yet? Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 02:18, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * In any scenario the GOP would have to posture to keep the base in line. That's simply how the game is played. Right now they want to keep from losing a motivated and active voter bloc while they plan for upcoming elections and policies. 02:24, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Here's an example to show the politics they are playing. The most hardcore of the Trump base is currently pissed off at Fox News -- Fox News! -- for having the audacity to *gasp!* call the election for Biden already. (Hell, I normally wouldn't post a Breitbart link, but as a window into this worldview, here's "the Breitbart" angle.) The Cult of the Trump runs pretty deep, and if you want something to worry about, it's more worrying that, in all probability, news sources for this group, the OANNs and Newsmaxes of the world, will kick up the derp to 11 in 2021+, with who knows what results. But most Republican politicians, from what I see, aren't willing to *completely* trash democratic values. So you get wishy-washy statements like "All votes must be counted President is within rights to file lawsuits blah blah etc." from Mitch McConnell -- he's not saying the election was fraudulent, but also he's also not saying that Trump is wrong to whine like a baby "fight" the results. The main people completely parroting Trump are Trump loyalist yes-men like Mike Pompeo. 72.184.174.199 (talk) 02:55, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Considering how they are forfeiting, what other than a coup could they be attempting? Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 06:16, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Republicans don't care for the rules anymore. They are going to hold on to the presidency regardless of what the final say in the ballots are, and they have surrounded themselves in a cult that will do anything they say.  I'm calling it that trump's cultist electors are going to be faithless in December and secure his presidency regardless of any rules or regulation.  MirrorIrorriM (talk) 15:45, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Republicans will only hold the executive branch if there is a literal coup.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 18:01, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You're making the mistake of viewing the GOP as a monolith. Sure, the base has more or less lost grip with reality, but it'd be a mistake to think that the GOP strategists are that fanatical. Most of them are smart enough to cook up ways to regain power should Trump cease to be useful. 18:29, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, the GOP, like the Dems, is a big tent party comprising of multiple factions and groups vying for power and influence. They have overlapping goals, but they can also be very different from each other in terms of strategy and messaging. 18:32, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It is worth noting that (simplified) the party who won the popular vote in the state picks the electors. It is beyond absurd to think that the Democrat party would actually pick Trump cultist electors to represent them. 72.184.174.199 (talk) 18:42, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This is not technically true BoN. Electors are sent to the electoral college by state legislatures. There are already some campaign advisers floating WI, PA, AZ and GA (states where the GOP controls the legislature) send a slate of electors who would support Trump. This fraud would be perpetuated by the Senate-President, Mike Pence, who oversees the electors votes on Jan 3.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 20:52, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes and no. You may want to review California's page on the electoral college as an example. This is the typical process and this is what is typically encoded in state election law. It is true that the state legislatures ultimately decide election law and have the power to override the typical process. But in my opinion, any attempts of doing so would trigger a massive Constitutional crisis. For a start, courts have generally frowned on changing election law after the election takes place, which is what would happen here. Any law that basically instructs electors to ignore the popular vote also will be massively challenged as well. At any rate, Pennsylvania Republicans won't do it, and I would doubt other state governments with any hint of a split chamber (WI) would even try. The fact that this shit is even being floated is frankly sickening, though. 72.184.174.199 (talk) 21:24, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

What is the actual meaning?
scary I don't usually get this heated. Do you? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 08:55, 7 November 2020 (UTC) The song is pointing out "that's the nigga" and whoa, shit, I'm not that, I've tried to explain this one before and I don't have time to wait for you to figure it out. "I'm the thief in the night that'll slide your drawers off." Who can do that? Fucking good song, fight me if you disagree. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 09:03, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Isn't he also talking Louisiana, and aren't I also arguing with people who've never been there that it's a song about being guilty by being black Gol Sarnitt (talk) 09:37, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Chapelle did a much better job of saying what I could ever try to say. I knew he would. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:03, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Goddamn it!
Got a seasonal flu shot yesterday (get yours asap). First time I took it actually, since I've been relatively young and never got sick for more than 2-3 days a year. Except for once maybe 5-6 years ago, when I caught a Streptococcus from my nephew and was sick for 10 days. But with the Covid and having turned 40, I'm starting to take this shit seriously. And with my employer paying for it anyway, I thougt why the Hell not. I was warned by the nurse that I might develop a mild fever, but that's ok. Just getting a very mild version of the flu and then developing temporary immunity to it. Well that's what seems to have happened. I'm feeling very mildly feverish and was about to test my temperature. Except the fucking traditional mercury medical thermometer I had slipped from my fingers as I was shaking it (to bring the mercury down before putting it in my arm pit...that's what I've been told to do, I'm no fucking expert on this) and shattered. That's what the "Goddamn it" in the title is for by the way. I need to get a new thermometer, but my local Apotechary has a note on their door to not come in if you're sick and I obviously understand it with the Covid and all. They also had something in there about home delivery, but I hadn't made a note on it. I found their email in the internet and send one. Hopefully it's enough to get information on how to get the home delivery. I know it's better to just get this mild temperature and fucked in head state than the actual seasonal flu. I'm mostly fucked in the head anyway. But I really hate having to find a roundabout way to buy a new thermometer, as I'm used to just going to a shop to buy whatever I need on impulse basis. Fucking annoying! At least I have some scotch, hopefully it makes me feel better. Or maybe I've had too much already and that's what the fever is about. Get your flu shot though. 19:05, 11 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I can't. I had some decades back a bout with Guillain-Barre Syndrome, and due to potential immunological damage from that, I'm advised to not get a flu vaccine shot.  Ever.  Which is about the only excuse I know of for refusing a vaccine that's valid, unless I want to take the risk of whole body paralysis, permanently. Kencolt (talk) 04:33, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Is it possible for the Republicans to hold on to the presidency?
Sure, it would mean a literal extrajudicial coup, but the party blatantly doesn't care about the constitution or democracy anymore and their base is so divorced from reality as to essentially be schizophrenic. Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 19:18, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Possible, but extraordinarily unlikely.Ariel31459 (talk) 19:26, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * What makes you say that? Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 19:28, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * How is a political party structured? 19:40, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid politics isn't my area of expertise. Perhaps you could help me out. Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 19:42, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The party is organized with the voter base at the bottom, the party candidates in the middle, and then the management, accountants, and strategists at the top. Now, remember I said that doing a coup at this point was dumb and that the GOP leadership aren't morons? 19:46, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, but they aren't backing off and conceding either. Why? Why are they doing everything in their power to undermine the election results and stall further counting? Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 19:50, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Doing or saying? These are not always the same thing. 20:25, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * So the litigation against blue states and counting states isn't action? Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 20:36, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Who's filing those suits? 20:38, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The Trump campaign. Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 20:48, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * And how has the GOP leadership reacted? Are they backing him or trying to act wishy washy? Also, how well are those suits going? 20:51, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The only reason they are entertaining this farce, they need Trump's voters energized in GA. The voters tend to believe Trump not the GOP. Also lawsuits are 0-12, and there have been some amusing admissions by lawyers, my favorite being an admission that there was a "non-zero" number of GOP observers watching tabulation in MI.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 20:55, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * So you guys are not convinced that a coup is being attempted? Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 21:07, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Look, not to be harsh, but that was all hashed out in an earlier section. 21:10, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm just concerned about a protofascist moron running the wealthiest military superpower on Earth for a while longer. Also, even if Trump is smoothly removed from office, you're going to have to come to terms with the fact that 1/3 of your country doesn't live in reality. Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 21:28, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Only a third?-Flandres (talk) 21:37, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I take it you disagree. Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 21:52, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, at least 47% of the voting population was okay with all this! That's more than a third-and even NeverTrump republicans who happened to vote for Biden this time still believe all sorts of right wing nonsense about economics, climate science, race relations...this is not a country of smart people.-Flandres (talk) 21:59, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * To answer your question Buch, to deny Biden the Presidency would be tantamount to the end of the American republic. He won. When they recount the votes he will win again. Nobody wants the kind of revolt that would ensue if Trump remained in the WH.Ariel31459 (talk) 22:26, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, it'd be bad for business, and the RNC (Republican National Committee), is nothing if not business conscious. Now they have to covertly distance themselves from Trump without being too obvious, since they still want his supporters. 23:30, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. Also, they want to drum up furor for the Georgia senate runoff.Ariel31459 (talk) 01:51, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Does this belong here? Request for guidance
Yes, the ole' LANCB couldn't help himself. I'm still miffed at the AoC article, although I no better than to just bumrush it with words now. I have, according to guidelines, put my opinions in the talk section of Age of Consent. I believe they fit the requirements/norms of the site. If one of you mod-men/seniors/boomers have the chance to, can you please check it?
 * You may have raised some valid points. We'll look into it.-Hastur! (talk)  02:40, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Why all this?
So I know this probably isn’t useful or whatever but like. Looking at how places like the US, UK, Brazil, etc have handled the whole covid thing, I’m left with just asking myself. Why??? What the fuck is wrong with these people??? I just don’t understand it. I would see myself as generally very cynical about pollies and rich people in general, but this is something that’s so viscerally, absurdly extreme that I can barely even begin to comprehend it. As we’ve seen with Trump’s Bob Woodward thing, this isn’t incompetence or ignorance. This is fucking wilful. Why? Do they really make that much money from it??? Surely they realise that people dying makes the economy bad and want to kick you out of government??? Is it ego??? How does thousands upon thousands of people you’re responsible for, fucking dying, help one’s ego? Is it just some kind of “power for the sake of power” thing???? But like if so why??? How is it that fucking appealing???? What makes it even harder to grasp is that our guy in charge is Mr. “Holiday In Hawaii While The Country Is Literally On Fire”, and even his government managed to at least pull something together — and it wasn’t all him, and it wasn’t as good as other places, but it was fucking something. Seriously, I knew they never cared about most people but I never thought it could be this. Fucking. Obvious. It just doesn’t make sense to me. I know at the end of the day, intentions are much less important than what they actually did, but this is really rattling my brain. Ive never really trusted these people at all in my adult life, but I always able to soothe the rage/absurdity/despair from that with with plausible deniability and self-gaslighting. Now there’s nothing else there. Can anyone please help me find any way to make sense of this at all???? Or is this just something that has no answer and I have to just live with that somehow??? 14:29, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe one of those leaders does so because they are as ridiculous as the people who eat up their bullshit. But most of it is cold and villainous political strategy. Creating pointless division and political hysteria via disinformation on a topic that is easily resolved yet requires notable inconvenience gets the political leaders support in some places. Support so they can hold on to the reigns of power as people die and/or as the country becomes less safe, poorer and less stable. It is pure political evil. Of course they cannot do it without people eating up their bullshit which says something about a lack of critical thinking skills taught in school, disinformation media, social media and our human failings. It could potentially happen in any country under the right conditions. Anywere. Shabi  DOO  15:12, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * But like. Why that particular strategy??? Surely one could also get/maintain support by doing better than most other countries (hence why Jacinda Ardern did so much better than Trump). Likewise, the same strategies used to save lives could also be used to consolidate power without much opposition — and a lot of places have been doing that already. What does pointless political division and political hysteria actually do that, say, actually fixing the fucking problem wouldn’t do better?? Do you think it might be a question of like. It’s easier to fear and hate a group of people than a virus, so it’s about just giving them someone to hate and feel besieged by? Because my only guess is either that, or, they can somehow make more money selling PPE/news/healthcare/whatever to their rich friends than they could by..... people being alive. I guess neither of those options makes 100% sense to me, but I think I understand economics less so idk. But the other question is. Even if the pandemic did actually make them richer and more powerful, what makes so many people in these positions just, not care even passively?? I want to feel like they’re just “bad people” but that feels both too easy and too hard. Too easy bc it implies that this can be solved if there’s enough “good people”, and too hard bc the fact that so many of them are in charge is just. Absolutely horrifying. “Power corrupts” or “attracts the corruptible” always sounded to me like something that seemed to make sense but seemed to facile. But after everything I’ve seen, heard, and/or been at the wrong end of. Cop violence, fascism, abuse, oppressive capitalism, colonialism, austerity policies, ignoring climate change, terrorism, corruption, etc. Somehow nothing has made me feel so viscerally confronted by disgust/despair/confusion in the same way. I’m not necessarily saying that the covid thing is “worse” than any of these things in any particular way, or that I can even explain why I feel this way about it. I just really do, and that’s been a fair bit to deal with tbh. 15:30, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 'Looking at how places like the US, UK, Brazil, etc have handled the whole covid thing,' for fucks sake stop lumping in the uk with the like of the us and brazil. they are in no way similar, and the their responses to covid are fundamentally different. and while we are at it brazil's bolsonaro is not the same as boris johnson, and johnson is nothing like the 'british trump' no matter how much we want things to be so easy or however lazy we want to be in linking things we dont like.
 * fucking stop it, i am sick of having keep to saying these things are not the same, and fucking sick of having to defend a prick like johnson AMassiveGay (talk) 15:39, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I haven’t given the other western governments much thought (mostly because they seemed to come around after their heads of government were hospitalized like the UK or they hit some horrific threshold like Italy or they responded correctly from the start), but in the US’s case there doesn’t appear to have been a strategy at all. The Federal agencies which were inclined to help were held back by our president because he feared an economic crash, masks became a cultural issue because he didn’t want to wear one, and even after catching the virus he insisted on big campaign rallies (either to massage his ego or keep his job, we’ll know which if he holds rallies after the election), very likely dooming some of his most loyal supporters. It’s very human to seek out the why of things, but this government’s COVID response isn’t going to have a satisfying one. You’re looking for the strategy of a player who makes noises when he moves his chips and announces every good hand he gets. The plan, such as it was, was to get a flush in the form of a good economy and no crisis. He didn’t, so he should have folded, but he upped the ante, bluffed, and got called. Now he’s flipping the table. Artificius (talk) 16:32, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There are many ways to spin things. If you look at deaths per capita, a IMHO better way to sort things, the UK is easily pretty close to Brazil and the United States. So, yes the UK can be lumped there to be honest. But... other countries like Spain, Belgium, Peru, and Chile are actually currently performing worse in this metric. Other European countries (Germany, Nordic countries except Sweden) perform quite a bit better. But nothing compared to far East countries (Japan, South Korea, Singapore) or Australia and New Zealand. (Note that these statistics will miss those that we know clearly undercount, such as much of Africa or Russia)
 * My "armchair analysis" is to look beyond the leaders and just look at general culture -- there's nothing very Trump-y about the PM of Spain, Pedro Sánchez, for instance, but Spain's culture is such where it seems that they aren't taking masking and social distancing seriously where it really counts (such as crowded bars). Where in much of Asian culture, wearing masks when you were sick already was a social thing before COVID. Johnson is not Trump, but the United States and the UK both have large anti-mask type segments. (I see mask acceptance as a good proxy for how seriously you take the science behind the pandemic.) The culture behind the anti-mask sort is quite different between both nations (the US anti-mask crowd is strongly associated with the Trump right-wing, my impression is that the UK in contrast is all over the map -- far right winge COVID conspiracy theorists like align with far left COVID conspiracy theorists like ). But the virus really couldn't give a hoot about the small details.
 * Politicians in my opinion are heavily reflective of already existing cultures. A demagogue ala Trump or worse can amplify the worst aspects of a particular culture, but generally speaking the bigger question is what causes certain personality types in various nations to not take COVID-19 seriously. For instance, one element that is shared between Brazil and the United States is a "macho" culture among certain elements; subsequently, some of the anti-mask nonsense ends up being machismo culture that in this case overrode logical sense. (This is, of course, just one cultural thread of many, but Trump and Bolsonaro in many ways represent the untamed, unthoughtful machismo strand in both nations.) 72.184.174.199 (talk) 16:39, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * thats all bullshit though isnt it. anti mask sentiment in is not at all main stream in the uk, and not at all promoted by government as it has been in the us. deaths per capita, excess deaths etc, however you want to measure such things are not the point at all in comparisons but the official responses are. the uk has in no way downplayed the risks of covid, has in no downplayed the science behind any of it, guilty only of being slower in their response, by a matter of mere days, than european counterparts. mere days is all that stands between the response of the uk and france for instance. we have had lockdowns here in the uk, and few have questioned them. indeed johnson brought in the current lockdown in defiance of some his own party.
 * there is no comparison between the uk and the us or brazil on any of the points that matter in the handling of covid. on testing for example, uk lacked the capacity for what was necessary, while the in the us, which had the capacity, chose not to.
 * no comparison AMassiveGay (talk) 17:33, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

that’s fair enough, I am sorry. I am currently too overwhelmed with contradictory information from my international friends and such that I find it difficult to parse things out, but I should be more careful of course. I am legit sorry. 23:09, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I live in Spain and I see maybe 0.05 percent of people not wearing a mask in the street. It is obligatory in some districts. By law you have to wear masques inside any public space. You're booted out if you don't or the police are called. Social distancing is impossible in the centre of most mediteranean cities. We have super concentrated urban areas. On the streets of MAdrid you cannot possibly maintain social distance on the sidewalks, you are passing tons of people all the time. However on benches people maintain a distance and people do the best they can when possible. Children wear masks at schools (unless given an exception) and maintain social distancing. Most work places are closed and people work from home. We had a nearly two month absolute shut down (could not leave home for any reason except weekly grocery shopping or medical reasons or rapid dog walks). 80% of the population live in small highly concentrated appartments with no gardens or back yards and you cannot possibly avoid passing people. Restaurants have 30% seating capacity and are frequently closed down for periods. I would say Spainish urban development is conducive to rapid spreading of the disease and despite harsh controls it is difficult to contain it compared with say super open and spacious Canada/New Zealand/Norway. The prime minister is a socialist and takes covid extremely seriously. The UK faces similar problems (though to a lesser degree and slightly more relaxed conditions) and while I think the measures could be stricter and the Prime Minister is a raging assfuck, he takes covid very seriously. Neither place or their politicians approaches to COVID is remotely comparable with Trumpland or Brazil. Shabi  DOO  17:29, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't say the UK or Spain's COVID politics is remotely comparable with Trumpland or Brazil, the government in both countries (with the exception of pre-virus Boris) is responding generally speaking okay (considering all the challenges) in my opinion. Yet the death per capita is in a similar ballpark! I'm not sure what handwaving that number away does, it's probably one of the more important metrics, you can scream "fake news" and "bullshit" all you want, unless there's fuckery in the statistics, the number is the number. As far as "anti-mask", "not mainstream" does not mean nonexistent, in my opinion. Yougov handily tracks sentiment on masks and other public sentiment in many, many nations. The United States and the UK actually are in the same ballpark on polled facial mask usage in public, at 80%. Spain is at 90%! So the overwhelming majority are in favor of caution. Interestingly enough, places like Norway poll more like 25% mask usage, and they have a better mortality rate so far -- probably, similar to South Korea, due to aggressive testing. (Though the current month numbers suggest the start of a possible wave there, so they may not be as lucky this winter for all I know.) Mask usage is only one part of the equation. But I do find the mask polls useful as a proxy for (*cough*) "idiocy of a few" issues. it is pretty easy to Google "Million Mask Marches" (UK) or protesters in Madrid. More to the point, there are plenty of stories of various groups in a lot of Europe (as well as the US etc.) still going to the sort of party or other gathering that fits the "super spreader" mold, virus be damned. Try that exercise for South Korea and Singapore. There are obviously other factors for the mortality (in the UK, the failure to protect care homes is a big one -- an issue I think that is also the case in Spain) but some of it, from my viewpoint, is that unfortunately with this virus, even good governance can be overridden by an idiotic few. 72.184.174.199 (talk) 19:55, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * while you are googling fucknuts in uk and spain, you should google the rest of europe too and see that anti lockdown protesters in every nation. they are a small fringe - the million mask march saw about 1000 attendees, another protest in the north of england saw 600 and had to bus them in. google care homes in europe and you will see the uk is not alone there either.
 * it makes no sense in looking at death tolls either, you cannot compare one country to another - it is not like for like for a whole host of reasons. you can only look at the relative responses different countries have made, and even then take in the different challenges they face in meeting the crisis AMassiveGay (talk) 20:47, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * its not even true to say johnson's own brush with covid had any effect - uk went in lockdown on march 20-23, he was admitted to hospital april 5th. it made no difference to policy whatsoever AMassiveGay (talk) 20:53, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * people want easy answers, clear villains to point to, proofs that their world view/politics are best that opponents are wrong. the covid pandemic tells gives nothing, certianly not while it still rages. we wont know anything for certain till long after the dust settles, and it probably wont be any clearer then either AMassiveGay (talk) 21:02, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

My New Workout
So, I discovered the secret to gaining muscle fast. It's "you stay home doing jack shit for 5 months straight". Then go back to the gym.

Apparently it works. I don't exactly get it, I should've atrophied more, but 1 month in I was back to where I was and then in the past month my max bench press went up by 15 pounds. I'm still trying to figure out how.

But anyway, I've started doing Push-Pull-Leg, so, yay for that. CoryUsar (talk) 16:24, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I've seen this before too, that burst of energy for the first few days or even a week when you go back to working out after a long period of sloth. You'll probably crash a bit soon before you hit your equilibrium if you do it regularly. Artificius (talk) 23:05, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah but I started going back to the gym at the end of August, I'm well beyond the point of having any bursts of energy. It took me a month to get back to where I was before the gyms closed, another month to get 5 pounds stronger than I was pre-close, and then another month to get 15 pounds stronger than that.  At the weight I'm doing (well over 300), just going up 5 pounds every other month would be considered a huge gain.  Goal is to get 405 (4 plates exactly), but I don't know if I'll ever be able to get that much. CoryUsar (talk) 14:42, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

People Believe Trump, Maybe I Haven't Believed Trump for Reasons That Don't Matter
I played that Pamela White speaking in tongues thing, it nettled some people I showed it to. I said "No, I'm not saying this lady doesn't believe what she's saying, I'm saying there's no way Trump believes it." And then, holy shit, looking back, Trump has been saying the same things as the most reviled prosperity gospel preachers the whole time. And his campaign sent out emails guaranteeing huge returns for minor donations in their death throes. What if we didn't take Trump's faith seriously at all? What if Trump is an honest adherent of prosperity gospel, and in his mind he's a literal demon buster sent by God to not understand the Gospel, but enact the Gospel? That's a big portion of his support's opinion, a bunch of loose play retroactive Popes. God wouldn't let them tell lies, but being wrong ain't that big a deal. I think he believes it, maybe not when he started, but if today believes it and is throwing it to his spiritual advisers and they are going full prosperity gospel on his behalf, it makes more sense. I would like to treat them all as honest people, because tell me a person you've met that wasn't honest enough. Nobody fakes faith like that.
 * I am concerned that money sent to Trump in this fashion wouldn't be going towards election disputes, but rather to prop up tax exempt institutions. Trump's art of the deal isn't taking full advantage of his losing strategy otherwise.  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The tRump family preacher, and the prosperity gospel both come out of the same routes of New Thought, so it's no surprise. Peale, though, abandoned most of the religious trappings of Christianity, so it's also no surprise that tRump has privately disparaged some of the more ostentatious behaviors and peculiar beliefs of the religious right. Fun Paula White video cuts out the bullshit: https://tenor.com/view/paula-white-hit-donald-trump-head-hammer-gif-19111093 Bongolian (talk) 21:42, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Let the SCP's flow like water!
Okay I am working on another YouTube video that is a sequel to a previous video involving SCP-751. I am also adding other containment breaches. Instead of being on the west coast of the US in the first video (aka the "West Coast Tragedy"), it will take place in the southeastern US. I am also adding original Foundation personnel characters.

It will be my Thanksgiving special! --Channel 48 WDEM-TV3 (talk) 17:07, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Taking a crack at a funny Spanish sentences
La perra bebe mi auga.

El pan verde esta en la mesa. --RZ94forMod2020 (talk) 23:57, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "The (female) dog drank my water," and "The green bread is on the table?" Are these commonly said? Artificius (talk) 00:09, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * They are fine, though water is misspelled (agua).Ariel31459 (talk) 01:33, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * (In a cheering manner) CONTEXT CONTEXT CONTEXT Gol Sarnitt (talk) 06:02, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I vaguely recall watching a movie when I was a kid in which a character, attempting to prove he speaks Spanish, says "Tengo un gato grande en mis pantalones." to a group of Mexican police officers. AcidTrial (talk) 16:12, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Un sandwich de gato, por favor. --Channel 48 WDEM-TV3 (talk) 00:44, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Tu puedes comprar este en Thailand. Artificius (talk) 13:49, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Depending on the context you might want to say "encima de la mesa". Shabi  DOO  14:31, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ¡Mi aerodeslizador está lleno de anguilas! (Very useful if you visit a tobacconist's, te promito.) Zontar (talk) 19:29, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

The Future
Right now, I am in the process of completing my studies. As a result, I have been far less active than I was a year ago, when I joined RW. I will come back, and I will help with whatever you need, but for now, I will be on a temporary hiatus. — <font color="Red">Jeh2ow <font color="Blue">Damn son!  14:58, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Good luck and congrats! 16:02, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Living in an Illusion
https://qr.ae/pNO54K

Short version, he says that we choose illusion for comfort and tries to use the example of the setting sun as one thing because the sun doesn't really set, the Earth rotates. Personally I think this is missing the point greatly but I can't quite verbalize how per se.Machina (talk) 05:08, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Art is used to describe a person's perspective. If someone is writing a story about a person riding a merry-go-round, the author would use languages like "The world is spinning around him" to describe the person's experience. Of course, that does not mean that the author does not know that it is actually the person who is spinning. If the author were to say "The person is spinning around" just for the sake of accuracy, the reader of the story would not be able to connect with the character as strongly. 136.143.220.69 (talk) 06:15, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "I think this is missing the point greatly but I can't quite verbalize how per se."
 * Do you mean that choosing a way to describe relative motion isn't the same as choosing a comforting illusion? I agree. 82.46.167.158 (talk) 10:47, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * For someone who hates philosophy you sure spend a lot of time investigating and talking about philosophical concepts (now we've moved on from solipsism to human perception and understanding in general). And for someone who thinks philosophy is bad, you sure pick really really really bad commentators on philosophy. The first two paragraphs of his text are nothing particularly insightful or controversial. The last paragraph is overly dehumanising and simplistic. The sun DOES rise and set in the sky from our perspective. Just as a building is "moving away" from you as you walk away from it from your perspective. You can simultaneously understand that say a horse is moving away from you from your perspective while you walk away yet still being stationary from its perspective. It's not a hard concept to grasp and most people who are educated about the relationship between the sun and Earth understand that. They know its not a ball that bounces up and down in the sky. So the sun rising and falling is an extremely bad metaphor to use in terms of illusions because few people deny the sun is a hot ball very far away. Those that do suffer from the ills of conspiracy theories, not humans tendencies to prefer illusions. Thinking that luck is a force or that karma exists is an illusion. Even rational people give into its seductive force because its easier than the harsh and absurd truth that many events and tragedies happen for no meaningful reason at all and many of your accomplishments depend highly on chance. Illusions are also easy to swallow because they are part of a shared cultural narrative that is easier to follow than dispute. Those are two of the many complex reasons humans give into illusions (knowingly and unknowlingly). He also seems to have total disdain and disgust for people who give into illusions even though it is a totally natural phenomena (we ALL do it, even the best of us) and in fact cannot possibly be overcome because...you know...our imperfect human brains, our minimal knowledge and dependence on fuzzy and filtered human perception. What the fuck does he expect from people? Why is he dehumanising people like this? Shabi  DOO  12:33, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no single grand metanarrative to describe reality. The terms "rational," "reason," "logical," and so on are Western byproducts of the Enlightenment, and should be acknowledged as such. Not as overarching concepts that encompass all of reality, that perception is full of hubris. — <font color="Purple">Oxyaena <font color="Red">Harass  19:27, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

It's just really tempting to want to see reality for what it is though. I mean who wants to be wrong? Who wants to live in an illusion?Machina (talk) 06:37, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a fair question, who wants to be wrong? I do get frustrated with you, but you're not wrong in making me frustrated. So I am going to ask you a question, and I am absolutely behind your exploration.  I don't want western philosophy to be a wall, I would like to ask an unusual and uninspired question.  If we exist, as a given, what is the most important thing to do? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 07:34, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Mary Wollstonecraft statue
It has been said that there are no (modern) nude statues of famous men.

Who would people wish to see so commemorated? Anna Livia (talk) 10:13, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * A naked John Merrick Cardinal Chang (talk) 11:44, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keanu Reeves. 12:55, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, why is the Wollstonecraft statue so ugly? It's like a misshapen silver blob. Awful! 14:29, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I never understood the desire to depict famous characters in the nude. David, Venus, the angels, etc. From the classical, to the Renaissance, to the neoclassical, to the modern, I guess people are just really horny. IveBeenFrank (talk)
 * And it would be the bigliest beautifullest statue (possibly outdoing this. Anna Livia (talk) 18:56, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * With Genghis, you take one look at it and know immediately who it's meant to commemorate. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 20:33, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I can answer that. Nudes are a commonly-practiced skill in art for understanding human anatomy and how to render it. Even if you never go on to draw nudes as a final product, the skills they help you develop for bone structure, body proportions, and the like remain consistently useful.  Rodin's "thing" was exaggerated, impossible human forms that emphasize the shapes that do exist by using ones that don't.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 22:05, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Nobody. Decency people, decency means not having to look at Honest Abe's private parts. ThisSiteRuxExDee2 (talk) 19:00, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Abe would not have used 'bigliest beautifullest' and would not have had big-statue-fetishism. Anna Livia (talk) 19:20, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I bet you Abraham Lincoln was hung-Hastur! (talk) 08:32, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * We know who I am talking about. Anna Livia (talk) 13:20, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No one becomes an artist to NOT work with nude models. Similar can be said about producing music or movies, becoming an Executive-level manager, etc.
 * But if you want random nudity, I recommend Pennsylvania's Capitol building. Porn should be free for everyone! CoryUsar (talk) 14:47, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

It's not actually a nude of famous male person, but | This statue in Helsinki has been unofficially dubbed as pissing Putin. 14:09, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

The Relationship Between Multiple Sex Partners and Anxiety, Depression, and Substance Dependence Disorders: A Cohort Study
This study established a strong association between number of sex partners and later substance disorder, especially for women, which persisted beyond prior substance use and mental health problems more generally. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 120.158.130.126 / talk / contribs
 * Presuming that's correct, what's your point? Like, why the fuck should we care? 20:29, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, I strongly suspect what they want us to do is ignore all the reasonable causal inferences that could influence that: people with mental disabilities or substance abuse issues may have a harder time maintaining relationships, people suffering from depression may seek comfort from relationships that a less depressed person might choose not to have, social pressures like poverty and stress that drive anxiety also make it hard to keep stable relationships, or social support networks(which includes long term relationships) providing a well known protective effect against substance abuse disorders. Instead they want us to arrive at an asinine conclusion like "being a slut makes you crazy".
 * The paper itself isn't particularly bad, (though they're drawing awfully strong conclusions from subsamples of N=4, sometimes, and relies on citing 35 year old research for asserting strong differences in the reasons men and women have sex), but OP clearly wants us to draw inferences on dubious grounds. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:03, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing this is just trying to find scientific evidence to support being a square. I'll have you know I was depressed well before I started having random sex and doing drugs.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 22:49, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, thank you for showing me this study. This can help me fix my broken relationship with my girlfriend. 136.143.220.69 (talk) 22:55, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Rumour has it if you say correlation is not causation into a mirror three times the ghost of Bayes appears and gives you all that missing sexual satisfaction required for shit like this. McUrist (talk) 08:02, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not an argument, it's a scholar=depravity bullshit thing. Anti-intellectualism.  The whole point is higher education is ruining kids.  The whole base is against critical thinking.  Shit is everywhere, and people are so smugly sure of it.  The weird thing is, right here, nobody is like "That's right, orgies and child sacrifice!"  but fuck me if that isn't in the back of these guy's minds when they think of the Democratic party. You can check my affiliation, I registered as an Independent in 2006 and I voted for Biden.  When I registered at my high school an old lady told me if I didn't register republican I couldn't go to the caucus.  I got a 3rd place medal in student congress the previous year, I had to swallow my pride and say "Yes, thanks, but I know what I'm doing."  And I registered independent.  I am the scariest democrat vote.  Problem is, Trump was such a goof, put so many people in charge of so many real things and instead of doing their jobs they just said "I'm with Trump."  An article that proves orgies are tight kinda leans right, and what are you mad about?  Your democracy isn't threatened by people who might believe orgies are widespread and little voting blocks. Gol Sarnitt (talk)
 * whats the deal with people 'registering' as dem or rep or indy or whatever the equivalent of monster raving loony in the us? is this necessary to vote or something? AMassiveGay (talk) 10:28, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It can be necessary to vote in partisan primaries. Party nominees are largely chosen by party-registered voters. People who decline to register as some party are limited to nonpartisan primaries and to "open" primaries where any eligible voter may vote (this varies by state). It doesn't matter for general elections. Closed primaries shut independents out of the process, while open primaries are vulnerable to opponents trying to force the selection of a weak candidate. Different states have their own specific details, and the implications of "registering independent" vary.
 * "Rumour has it" That sounds pretty compelling, but my prior there is rather low. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 12:03, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * i can see having to register with a party to vote in its primaries, but an independent? why would you need to register as that? its sounds strange to me AMassiveGay (talk) 12:15, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If you register to vote without declaring a party affiliation, you are registered "independent" or whatever the state's preferred terminology is. There aren't usually advantages, but some primaries are closed to party-affiliated voters while being open to independents. I think Gol Sarnitt is emphasizing the independent registration as a political statement rather than something of practical significance. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 13:40, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * i guess it will make things easier to round up republicans to send off to fema camps AMassiveGay (talk) 18:16, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Holy...
https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2020/11/12/norway-transgender-bisexual-lgbt-hate-speech-parliament-penal-code/

LET'S FUCKIN' GO!!!

--HedvigsenSkreonk here 09:00, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That's nice. Over here, recently our equal rights part of the constitution was amended to include protection against discrimination based on gender identity/sexuality. Good to see other countries making strides on this as well. 10:20, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The ban on hate speech targeting gays and lesbians was in 1984!--HedvigsenSkreonk here 10:49, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * As long as they don't restrict hate speech against polyamory or polygamy (especially polygyny), I'm fine with it. Yeah, yeah, monogamy isn't for everyone but that doesn't mean we should embrace polygyny as an acceptable norm any more than we should have to accept incest between consenting adults as an acceptable norm. CoryUsar (talk) 15:08, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah polygamy should always remain illegal. IveBeenFrank (talk) 15:23, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

All of you are fucking insane. Restricting free speech is bad. And yes, polyamory is not on the same level as incest. That's like prudish Christian right-wingers saying homosexuality is the same as pedophilia. HairlessCat (talk) 01:14, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You denounced right-wingers immediately after espousing a right wing argument ("Restricting free speech is bad.") That's Jordan Peterson's bullshit argument against Bill C-16. Banning hate speech against LGBT people prevents assholes from spraypainting "FUCK YOU TRANNY" on the wall of a transgender person's house in the same way that banning hate speech against Jews prevents assholes from spraypainting "FUCK YOU KIKE" on the wall of a Jewish person's house. The Petersons of Norway will still be legally allowed to say stupid shit like "but but muh free speech". 45.56.154.37 (talk) 01:53, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Spray painting anything on someone's house is already illegal, for what would seem to be fairly obvious reasons. Banning speech because... oh god... it might offend someone's precious little feelz is a bad move. Giving anything on this is a terrible idea, and besides, I'd rather know who the crazies are in society and let them say it instead of, for instance, beheading someone over precious little feelz getting hurt. Plus, making some thought taboo is the best possible way to attract people to it; banning Catcher in the Rye and A Clockwork Orange clearly didn't work. And finally, who are these High Inquisitors of What Hurts The Feelz of (insert population) and why are they qualified to judge such things? It's lese majeste and the old community movie review boards repackaged in populist form. The Blade of the Northern Lights (<font face="MS Mincho" color="black">話して下さい ) 02:05, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course spraypainting on a person's house is in and of itself illegal. However, spraypainting "FUCK YOU KIKE" is more immoral than spraypainting "THE BLADE OF THE NORTHERN LIGHTS WAS HERE" or spraypainting the Mona Lisa. The content of what you spraypaint matters. Not all spraypaints can be treated equally. That's what banning hate speech is about. It's not about banning works of art such as Catcher in the Rye or The Clockwork Orange. 45.56.154.37 (talk) 02:23, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Just want to say, while I'm still dubious at best about the rationale I'm glad to engage with a dissenting view. That makes somewhat more sense, but I remain leery of having to judge content; inevitably the mirror image comes up when someone says something ludicrous about the perceived normal (look what DeSean Jackson said about Jewish people, with no significant material consequences, and while he at least apologized his primary defender Steven Jackson doubled down), which touches off more cries of inequality, and it becomes a race to see who can punish who the most. I don't know if there's any good way to resolve it, but I'd prefer (if for no other reason than my own self-interest, being afflicted with The Big A and therefore unable to keep track of what's a class of People Whose Feelz Need Protecting versus People Who Can Be Bashed With No Additional Consequence) to stay content neutral on these things. I can see the appeal to people who'd naturally be able to keep track of such things, though I'd also note that there seems to be a remarkable lack of perspective taking on their end when considering if everyone would actually know what this meant. Since I can only comment on my aforementioned problem with The Big A, I'd never want to criminalize demonizing autism; apart from agreeing with a surprising amount of it (entirely different topic, I know), if I don't agree with it I'm allowed to speak up against it. Besides, every so often I like getting my pound of flesh at normal people's expense and I want to keep that in my back pocket! The Blade of the Northern Lights (<font face="MS Mincho" color="black">話して下さい ) 05:03, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Muh freeze peach. — <font color="Purple">Oxyaena <font color="Red">Harass  12:17, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The consequences of having "get out of our town tranny" on someone's house are a lot worse than the consequences of random graffiti on someone others. That the two would be treated the same points to someone who doesn't care about the much harser consequences a victim of a hate crime faces nor cares about vulneral marginalised people. The same goes for being punched. The consequences of getting suckerpunched in a bar is physical harm and fear of future punches. The consequences of being called the n word and then being sucker punched are physical harm, fear of future punches, shame, humiliation, fear of future racism, fear of the community at large and increasing feeling of second class citizenship. While some may handle it better than others, the effects can be exponentially worse. Laws to limit the worst of vicious dehumanising hate speech are entirely sensible. In Spain since they were introduced crime against LGTBQ+ has gone down considerably. Efforts to reduce LGTBQ+ rights still continue in other ways, hatred can still be spread, the church still ragingly resists and anti-LGTBQ+ activities continue but, again, the worst most dehumanising threatening vicious hate speech has ended. So haters can continue hating and LGTBQ+ people enjoy a lot more security, peace and a little more equality. It is an entirely reasonable compromise. These hate laws are accepted by the overwhelming majority of the population. And for those who claim hate-laws are the beginning of a slippery slope towards further speech restriction, since they were introduced greater efforts have been made to end the "don't insult the king laws" showing, as in practice in Northern Europe, hate speech laws don't encourage further laws against free speech but in this case have encouraged ending old archaic laws enhancing other free speech. You either give enough of a shit of vulnerable marginalised communities and want to reduce violence and dehumanising acts against them and limit their misery or you want to protect the most egregious forms of hate speech and the bigots who say it. There are already limits on libel, speech leading to fraud, public disturbance, false police statements, panic...why on earth hate speech should be considered a special sacred class of speech is beyond me. That is the choice. One or the other. Protect the worst of bigots or make life livable for protected classes. Shabi  DOO  16:25, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yer freeze peach it what allowed the gay rights movement to happen in the first place, would've thought you'd want to guard that. And I have yet to hear anyone use the word "Manichaean" as a compliment when describing a position on something. You're not going to legislate these things away, and they'll inevitably be abused; Northern Europe is a vastly less diverse place than, say, the US, and when you throw together a whole bunch of different cultures there will be misunderstandings and tensions. Like I said, I don't think there's a true solution to any of this, so given that I'd prefer not to create hate speech laws that leave a potentially powerful tool for the next elected Very Stable Genius to use against perceived opponents. But hey, I certainly support societal stigmatization of such speech and definitely want people to speak back against it, and on a personal level it's all the same to me; I have enough of a hard time getting along with anyone as is, not going to needlessly discriminate on the basis of something that really doesn't matter. The Blade of the Northern Lights (<font face="MS Mincho" color="black">話して下さい ) 16:44, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Your argument (that if free speech is restricted, then the "bad guys" will abuse it) doesn't stand up to history. Let's take the "Very Stable Genius" you referenced. There currently are federal laws criminalizing threats to the President, and violent speech in general. During the BLM protests, or even the inauguration protests, Trump could have arrested organizers and protesters through those laws. But why didn't he? It's not that he didn't want to arrest them; BLM protestors have been presented with a laundry list of charges when they've been arrested. It's not that he didn't care about it; he's launched a Twitterstorm any time he sees himself denigrated. It's not that he didn't want to seem ruthless; this is the same man who deployed Homeland Security to imprison protesters in unmarked vans. It's simply that free speech laws aren't all that powerful. Though the issue is talked about endlessly, it isn't all that relevant in any Western country with those laws. In fact, those laws are only ever used in the most extreme scenarios, where nobody but the crazies are for the speech in question. The only way those laws could be dangerous is if their scope and enforcement capacity increased tenfold; the only way for that to happen is in the event of an active revolution, or complete control of the government by one party. By the time any of those events happen, the United States will cease to exist as the world knows it, and free speech will be the last of anyone's worries. IveBeenFrank (talk) 17:03, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * its strange. free speech/hate speech debates with americans often talk up hypothetical threat hate speech represent completely ignoring the parts of world, ie western europe, where hate speech laws have existed for sometime with none of the hypothetical risks emerging. i say this living in london, one of the most ethnically diverse cities on the planet. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:10, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * i would go as far to say hate speech laws are more necessary the more ethnically diverisity there is. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:24, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If there was a clear cut way to define it, maybe so. But that's not how humans and language work, as anyone with The Big A can attest; otherwise we'd sure get along much better, systematizing and logic tend to be our strong points yet make social interaction more difficult, not less. And if the Very Stable Genius could've actually had people locked up for what they said, he would have; you'll notice there was a promise to loosen libel laws, which thankfully never happened. And while some other countries seem to be doing fine, how has Hungary worked out with free speech lately? The Blade of the Northern Lights (<font face="MS Mincho" color="black">話して下さい ) 19:52, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * do you know its surprisingly super easy to not throw racist/sexist/transphobic/homophobic slurs around or incite bigoted hatred? i can go almost day without doing so and not even think about it. pretty easy to legislate too. its not like you need to define specific words or phrases. its generally a case by case kind of an application.


 * and what about hungary? their issues dont really involve overzealous hate speech laws do they now.


 * as for the us, its not limits on free speech that makes us politics so fucking appalling, pretty much the opposite. but i ask you this - which country is currently wracked by racial strife - is it one with hate speech laws or is it one that touts a near absolutist freedom speech in the same way catholics cross themselves? AMassiveGay (talk) 21:09, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Honestly it's hard for me to say, since southwestern CT has had only a few fairly lame protests (the protester wearing a Martha's Vineyard T-shirt rather neatly summed it up) and certainly nothing like rioting; for better or otherwise, people seem to be getting along with each other about the same. Can't say that our attitude has made us worse off here, at least, though I can imagine someone down the road in New York City thinking otherwise. The Blade of the Northern Lights (<font face="MS Mincho" color="black">話して下さい ) 21:41, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Conservapedia
Looks like our old friends are at it again...Evilatheistheathen (talk) 22:42, 14 November 2020 (UTC)


 * At what again? Do you mean Ken's, LT's and Rob's constant trolling of on talkpages? -- Goatspeed.  22:55, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Interesting Times
Did you think you’d ever see the day when a Koch brother regretted injecting money into politics? Artificius (talk) 01:05, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Not enough, of course, to stop donating massive amounts of money to Republican campaigns this very year.-Flandres (talk) 01:13, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Never enough. Artificius (talk) 17:38, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

If I'm Brainwashed, If I'm Wrong
I don't have a gun. I'm a registered voter, registered independent. I am anti-gun, and have ideas on how to transition to a zero gun society. I think the police are racist, whooop, I have white guy dealt with the police many times, whooop, I don't think it's very complicated. Everyone I talk to either gets it or wants to make it nutso bonkers complicated on the easiest beats, Biden does not meet my standards and yet, has brainwashed me, I voted for him, and that is not democracy and my vote is invalid, please believe me, these people are everywhere. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 11:45, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Cool Story, Bro. Revolverman (talk) 12:25, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Suspicious poll
Has anyone else noticed that the "Who are you voting for" poll is heavily leaning towards Trump? Seems kind of weird to me. Is it trolls or something? Twodots (talk) 23:04, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You're right, they should be voting for Giant Meteor (Doom Party). Vote Doom party, at least it'll be quick! 23:10, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I was just wondering why they didn't vote for Kanye. I mean, we all know he won the election. Probably some low-effort trolls, nothing to worry about. God-Emperor Kanye will send them to a dungeon or something. Twodots (talk) 23:16, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Doom Party 2020! End our suffering! 23:19, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * HAIL MASTER KANYE! LONG MAY HE REIGN! Twodots (talk) 23:21, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I noticed oddly that the one poll about languages, there was a large number of Russian speakers. I seriously doubt that there are a ton of Russian speakers here on RW. Russian trolls? --Channel 48 WDEM-TV3 (talk) 23:13, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It's an Internet poll with low vote count. Seems like the only protection is by IP address, which means anyone with access to proxy services or multiple servers or hell an easygoing DDNS can vote multiple times. (I threw a few votes towards the Giant Meteor while testing this hypothesis, because we all know Chancellor COVID-19 and Supreme Grand Master Climate Change of the Doom Party are the real winners of 2020.) 93.115.35.138 (talk) 03:22, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe there's a flaw in these polls (as well as the vote count on the RationalWiki:To do list, wherein a logged-in person can vote more than once for the same outcome as long as the vote is not close to the original vote(s). Bongolian (talk) 04:20, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I think you're right. I've definitely answered those polls more than once. Do we have a way of fixing it? Twodots (talk) 16:45, 16 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I think it's because of VoTuHr FroOwUhD!!! We demand a RECOUNT!!! BIDEN WON THAT POLL, BY A LOT!  -- Goatspeed.  19:07, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Did any follow the Armenian-Azerbaijan conflict that recently wrapped up?
Wild stuff. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 2001:8003:59DB:4100:2D2F:48F6:A0D7:1B8 / talk
 * Yes I've been following it. Visceral hatred between nationalities here and in the Balkans goes back centuries and isn't going away any time soon.  In this one the Azeri's have used their oil wealth to outspend the Armenians for many years in building up their armies.  They also played the Muslim card -leveraging Turkey's antipathy for Armenia very well. Aloysius the Gaul 23:34, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * you dont have to go back centuries just to the 90s and the Nagorno-Karabakh War. if the status of Nagorno-Karabakh could be resolved, the acrimony between the two countries would most likely dissipate. as it is its an open wound. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:43, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see any end to it in the foreseeable future. It's a damn shame, since the Armenians and Azeris have fascinating cultures and histories; Armenians have been on the receiving end of far more than their fair share of atrocities, especially in the last 120 years. The Armenian Americans I know are past caring about all the old ethnic tensions and just wish the fighting would stop, it kills them not to be able to safely visit the places their parents and grandparents came from. Maybe someday the people living there will figure out it's just not worth slaughtering each other, much like the British and Irish finally did, but there's nothing encouraging about the situation there now. The Blade of the Northern Lights (<font face="MS Mincho" color="black">話して下さい ) 03:03, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I have been following since the beginning-I have a circle of friends offline that tend to follow ongoing conflicts and discuss tactics, technologies, what this says for the future of a given region or warfare in general, and so on. I will say, in a very warped and small sense, I take some pride in being the only one of them to forecast a Azeri victory.-Flandres (talk) 03:09, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I've heard about it; my dad has lots of friends who are Armenian-American, and he told me about it. -- Goatspeed. 19:08, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Terrible. The Armenians have suffered so much over the past few centuries and the Azeris just can't do the right thing and let them be. 2604:6000:FFC0:54:29A7:D02D:339:5EF0 (talk) 19:42, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Not that the Armenian army had covered themselves in glory either, but yeah, basically. The Blade of the Northern Lights (<font face="MS Mincho" color="black">話して下さい ) 20:21, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Maggots
I have a plan. If successful, it'll make it harder for Conservapedia to gain new members. I don't really want to bother describing it if nobody is interested, so I'd like to check beforehand. Tell me if you want to know more, ignore if you don't. Twodots (talk) 23:44, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * We don't encourage trolling CP or making any active attacks towards it in general. Basically the idea is to wait for something ridiculous to happen over there organically (only a matter of time), and then pop then popcorn, grab a beer and enjoy the show. And make snarky commentary over here maybe. 23:56, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Plotting to attack CP would imply that it matters. CP doesn't matter. 00:06, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There is absolutely no reason for an attack. All it would do is make us look bad. I advise against it. --Channel 48 WDEM-TV3 (talk) 03:19, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

In my official capacity, I am telling you this. Do not attempt to carry out any kind of cyber attack on Conservapedia. RationalWiki does not encourage or condone that kind of behaviour. Don't discuss it here. Don't try to get other RW users to help or encourage you. Spud (talk) 04:08, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I am also speaking as a moderator here. Spud is correct. We do not condone or support attacking, or even trolling on Conservapedia. If you're caught planning or doing such activities, you will very likely get permabanned from RationalWiki. Bongolian (talk) 04:25, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * As a BoN (and a long time lurker), I agree with the mods here. After all, trolling is a very irrational thing to do. 199.168.78.210 (talk) 04:39, 16 November 2020 (UTC)


 * As a candidate for moderator in this year's election, I agree with Spud and Bongolian. Do not make suggestions for cyberattacks on this wiki. I daresay Karajou'd have a field day with this thread, if he ever saw it. -- Goatspeed. 19:17, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * A problem with wiki PsyOps as with so many things is underestimating your opponent. An attempt to disparage them could backfire, a false flag could tip them off and make the rest of your agency a series of misleading flubs for your side, and that lack of respect could blind you to the fact that some or all of them are smarter than you and you’re making obvious and stupid mistakes based on how you imagine they see you. Hopefully your plan doesn’t involve any of that and you’re thinking several moves ahead instead of focusing on a “Gotcha!” moment. Artificius (talk) 05:31, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The only plan I will support is "make RationalWiki a better website than it currently is, hopefully informing more people and thus reducing the number of people who would be swayed by misinformational websites". CoryUsar (talk) 07:39, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Oh, guys, I wasn't talking about cyberattacks or vandalism. Sorry for all the concern. Twodots (talk) 16:05, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * CP has already made it hard enough to make it impossible for a new user to become established. There is no use for this plan. 16:12, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

The basic idea was to reference our wiki and similar sites while making them less appealing to newcomers. For example, we might change "Homosexuality is a sin" to "Homosexuality is a mental illness and an abomination to the Lord. People who disagree with this, such as the idiots at RationalWiki, are Satan-worshipping monsters, and should be treated as such." I don't have plans to go ahead with this without widespread support, and definitely not without the consent of the mods and established users. I'm sorry for causing concern. Twodots (talk) 16:23, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Well that one wouldn't have lasted long at CP anyway, since it mentions RationalWiki and that's a forbidden word over there. 16:29, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right... Could we try something similar on Parler? Twodots (talk) 16:35, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Despite RationalWiki's history, I really think we need to detach ourselves from any focus at all on Conservapedia. Note that several years ago, all of the CP-related articles here were placed in mothball/historical status. It does us no good to continuing to obsess over that wretched cesspool of villainy. To continue to do so invites CP trolls to come in here and poop all over the place. You are free to do your mission to "make it harder for Conservapedia to gain new members," of course, but I would strongly advise against attaching RationalWiki to this effort in any way. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 16:49, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Okie dokie. Twodots (talk) 16:56, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You'll never be able to troll Conservapedia harder than they troll themselves. 18:42, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Wasn't suggesting we troll, but yeah. Twodots (talk) 19:06, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

How 2 feel less hungry when you can’t afford food
Hello there. I have no food and don’t get paid for a couple more days. How do I feel less hungry? I have like. A few sour patch kids and some pizza bases (no toppings). Any food tips? Thanks. 49.197.18.155 (talk) 02:49, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The only alternative would be to go to my family’s house for dinner but I kinda don’t want to because every time I do I end up binge drinking. 49.197.18.155 (talk) 02:51, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Eating food that's high in fiber, protein, and fat will satiate your hunger. Eating food that's high in sugar (like Sour Patch Kids) or simple carbs (such as pizza dough) will actually make you more hungry. If I were you, I would throw away the candy and pizza. Instead, I would just drink water to fill up my stomach. 45.56.154.37 (talk) 02:55, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank u for the advice. Luckily I found some 2 dollar ham and salami at the corner shop so I will just eat that slowly until I have real food. 49.197.131.56 (talk) 04:00, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * How does eating bread make you more hungry lol wtf Rigger (talk) 14:14, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Rice is super cheap. Also see if there are any food banks near you-Hastur! (talk)  06:53, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Ramen noodles are very cheap too. --Channel 48 WDEM-TV3 (talk) 13:40, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Ramen isn't very cheap. Pasta, is much cheaper, add some ketchup and oil or lard. Rigger (talk) 14:11, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Canola oil. About 50 cents worth is an entire day's supply of calories, plus it's the healthiest cooking oil, containing an omega 6 to omega 3 ratio of just 2 to 1.  Long story short, your body isn't really good about digesting those essential oils, and they compete for the same digestive pathways.  If you eat a normal diet, you are getting more than enough of both, but you want to have a ratio of no more than 4 to 1 of omega 6 to omega 3.  That's why "fish oil" is touted as some super food bullshit, but it's a waste of money since you could just use canola, soybean (aka "vegetable"), or hemp oil, or if you are eating the oil directly you can use flax oil which is a ratio of 1 to 4 (i.e., more omega 3 than omega 6), but you can't cook with flax oil and it spoils rapidly.
 * So yeah, canola and rice will hold you over for a few days. Boil some rice, then saute it in oil.  But obviously, that's not healthy for more than a couple of days, you need protein and other nutrients.  Plus, you will go insane from eating the same flavorless thing over and over.  If you can, make Spanish rice and beans; soak red kidney beans for an hour then boil for a couple hours, saute onions, add the rice, and throw in some tomatoes (canned are fine) and a bit of salt.  The package of dry kidney beans will cost about a dollar, but you don't need the whole package; I think it's something like 1 pound of beans per 5 pounds of rice.  Red peppers, paprika and garlic are needed for the recipe, but if you are on emergency rations they aren't critical, and peppers are ridiculously expensive.   But, if you have the money, well, let's do the math.  5 pounds of rice comes out to be $3 and 10,000 calories.  The beans adds $1 and 1600 calories.  2 lbs of onions adds $1.50 and 400 calories.  Salt is negligible.  2 lb can of crushed tomatoes is $1 and 300 calories.  1/2 cup of canola oil is 32 cents and 2000 calories.  So now you have about 14,000 calories for about $7.  Basically, a week of food for $1 a day.  Obviously, you'll want to add peppers, garlic and paprika in there if you can so you can actually have a decent tasting meal, and it's not something that should be your only meal because, again, malnutrition, but it will keep you alive for a while.
 * Another option is, I don't know the name of it, but basically, lentils and rice with sauteed onions. A bit of salt, ideally some cumin, garlic if you have it.  Cheap, and an alternative to just the Spanish rice and Beans all day, plus it shares a lot of the ingredients so you won't have to keep too many different foods in inventory. CoryUsar (talk) 18:36, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

A pint of water can fill your belly when you want to snack. it wont stop true hunger pangs for more than 30 mins though AMassiveGay (talk) 01:15, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * oh, and beans on toast. thats a staple. AMassiveGay (talk) 06:06, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * and pancakes can be made with just flour and water. as can gnocchi type dumplings if you sick of rice AMassiveGay (talk) 06:10, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If you feel really hard up, you've gotta walk for this one, but find a ramp, a busy street that exits to a not busy street. Have a blessed day is your best bet. Rice and eggs are pretty easy.  Like, if you get a rice cooker, for the first few days it's like "what the fuck, I coulda done that."  You don't need a rice cooker.  Start putting your eggs in there too.  If you get one, you'll like it.Gol Sarnitt (talk) 08:25, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Some of the previous posters hinted at this, but eating oil or fats, and olive oil in particular, makes you feel full. Oil all by itself tastes kind of yuck, but if you have cheap starch carrier for it (rice, or bread), it's not bad. Bongolian (talk) 08:47, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The first time you softboil an egg for yourself is magical. Hardboil is easy. Softboil, as it turns out, is a matter of rice, water, and time.  I've had leftover buttered spaghetti noodles many times as a kid, it's pretty good.  Hardboiled eggs were also alway there.  I would guess that's a thrifty kind of holdout, but eggs, chickens and humans are widely cohabitants.  Eggs.  I have always advocated for sustainable ovolactopescatarianism, and eating bugs.  Cheaper and more sustainable food. I lived on rice and eggs and beans and fun days of salami, you'll have to forgive me for not having long-term advice on what to eat when you're broke.Gol Sarnitt (talk) 09:16, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * When I was at college and had to make do with very little money, I basically ate only bread with margarine at home. The school diner had heavily subsidized meals for students, so I'd eat there on weekdays and my parents would feed me on Sundays. Other than that bread would do. I was super skinny though and would get full easily, so might not work for everyone.  12:44, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

ask yourself 'do you really need both legs?' alot of meat on a thigh. you could eat for a week and i hear hear prosthetics are pretty good these day. and you probably wont need as much protein if there is less of you maintain. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:57, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Did you know there's a source of food that contains all the nutrients the human body needs? CoryUsar (talk) 14:47, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I wonder what the nutrition text would look like on a package of human thigh? Shabi  DOO  15:05, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

When I lived off of a crazy low food budget as a student for two months I found an asian store that sold the lowest end of noodles in a box of 20 (already discounted and on tuesday they were 25% off). So it worked out to 20 cents a package (had tiny chunks of dried meat or so it claimed so I got the meat part). I used only a quarter of the buillon per bowl and actually hand made my own noodles out of flour (cheaper buying a kilo of flour than a kilo of even the cheapest noodles). So there I had one meal with the noodles that came in the package and three meals with the handmade noodles (I made them in large batches and dried them). That made for two meals a day for about 60 cents. It worked out cheaper to buy bagged bread than to make it (flour and oven electricity cost more) though if you bought the jumbo bag of bread it was better and the cheapest peanut butter made my daily food budget 1 euro. That being said I cannot claim I did this just to get by, I had 3 euros a day budget, I just ate like a peasant for a few months so that I would have a couple euros left over a day to party with my friends and bring a few cans of beer to the party (back then you could get 4 cans of beer for a euro). Zheesh. First world subsistence living problems eh? Shabi DOO  15:18, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ...probably similar to a slab of pork? Possibly different across ethnicities, the way "angus beef" and "kobe beef" are both cows.  Hmm... which group would be more delicious... CoryUsar (talk) 21:02, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Probably ethnicity would mean less compared to rearing. I'd assume the calves of Canadian and Cambodian marathoners would have more in common with each other in texture or taste than the calf of Canadian hockey player and that of Cambodian bokator fighter. 21:13, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * So would you marinate the hockey player's thigh in Labatt's beer and accompany the Cambodian marathon runners thigh creamy prahok dip? Shabi  DOO  22:34, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't know. I can't cook to save my life anyway. 22:42, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm now imagining some weird comedy show, where a couple of upper-crust snobbish cannibals are complaining to the waiter about how their South Korean human-ribs are actually imitation Korean from North Korea, and they will suffer no less than authentic Korean. CoryUsar (talk) 22:51, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * pro cyclists are the kobe beef of human flesh. have you seen their size of their thighs? they might not be organic though AMassiveGay (talk) 10:02, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Scientism and Pseudoscience?
My impression is that scientism comes under the broader umbrella-term 'Pseudoscience' and is therefore a missional topic. Am I wrong to make this subsumption?Leucippus (talk) 21:07, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Well pseudoscience promoters will accuse actual scientists of scientism as a way to demonize them. It is a snarl word wrapped in an ad hominem tortilla. --Channel 48 WDEM-TV3 (talk) 21:56, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * We have an article on it-Hastur! (talk) 21:57, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. The article is a little narrow. It has more to do with the optimism that science can solve moral and epistemological problems. Although that may be wrong, it is not pseudo science, and should not be regarded as such.Ariel31459 (talk) 21:30, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * @Hastur! I was aware that we have an article on scientism, but my concern was with the links between 'scientism' and the missional criteria. The linking of any article to the missional criteria however indirect, seems to me to be worthy of discussion and clarification, and hence I was curious to see if my understanding of its connection to the missional criteria was shared. @Ariel31459 I disagree, 'scientism' involves the improper use of scientific claims beyond the scope of scientific inquiry, if this is claimed to be scientific, then it is merely masquerading as science. Leucippus (talk) 12:48, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Scientific ideas do not masquerade as science. Misapplications of science are not pseudoscience, and to take that line opens the door to science denialism. We don't do that here. Just being wrong does not amount to a pseudoscience. The term is used too often as a pejorative, like racism or misogyny. The problem with being wrong about an application of a scientific notion is that you appear to be incompetent. Isn't that bad enough?Ariel31459 (talk) 00:54, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

insomnia
i have trouble sleeping at the best of time but i halved the amount nicotine in my vape yesterday and now i cannot sleep at all. motherfucker AMassiveGay (talk) 04:05, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * How utterly banal. Rigger (talk) 09:44, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It's a little shitty of an answer, but I worked on lucid dreaming. I was in a duplex with 4 roomates, and I didn't skip out on work for it, but I always had trouble sleeping.  I spent some time trying to lucid dream, probably 2 months. Notwithstanding the current time, it really helped me.  Dreaming by sleeping when I wasn't tired and then journaling it, the two things that changed my sleep experience.  I don't know what to do on nicotine, I quit cigarettes and think I'm probably vaping more nic than I ever got from the old method. But, if you want to say "I'm going to get good at sleeping" it's actually possible.  You just have to prioritize it.Gol Sarnitt (talk) 10:02, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * i just need to adjust to the new level. the next step is zero nicotine.
 * @Rigger i think mundane is the word you wanted. twat AMassiveGay (talk) 10:19, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Zero nic is a good ideal. I was coming from a sleep method.  The last time I actually spent 24 hours without a nic fix was travel for a funeral.  It's a mean chemical and I hope you beat it.  Looks like you're on a better track to than I am.  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 10:30, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * RAH RAH GO, AMASSIVEGAY DON'T NEED IT I SAY RAH RAH GO, I DON'T NEED IT EITHER I SAY RAH RAH GO, AMASSIVEGAY IS DOIN IT LET'S RAH RAH RAH RAH GO! LET'S GO! I'll try and catch up. You're a hero, nicotine is fucking hard. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 10:40, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * its been a long time getting here. vapes are a literal lifesaver. other chemicals have been and are little more problematic for me, however AMassiveGay (talk) 11:53, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey guys I ate too many twinkies am I going to explode ;) Midwit Nerd 3.142 (talk) 18:16, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Just go cold turkey and stop bullshiting your self. If people can withdraw heroin, you can stop vaping overnight and never do it again. It's really that simple. Fuck sleep if you can't. Go for a walk. Then if you get tired enough, you can sleep in the morning. HairlessCat (talk) 22:40, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I've quit smoking cold turkey about 5 times in my life. Never had any problems with it or even withdrawal orders. At most I used to average about 5 cigarettes a day, so I was never a super heavy smoker, but I had been smoking nearly daily at most for about 5 years before quitting. Problem for me was not starting again when I was particularly pissed off over something.
 * Currently I've been clear of it for over 3 years excluding one weekend of general debauchery once every summer. 22:48, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * @hairlessCat - i can tell you are a non smoker and and have never experienced insomnia to any real degree AMassiveGay (talk) 09:58, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Ron Watkins seemingly revealed Jim Watkins as Q
Yes, that Q. He made an angry comment on Parler seemingly out of revenge over having to resign as 8kun administrator that indicates that Jim (his dad) has posted as Q before. Both Ron and Jim have been the administrators of 8chan since 2016, up until recently where it now just seems to be Jim. Given we have some people following the actions of that cult here, it might bear incorporation into the article. 21:06, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * FWIW I commented out your story on WIGO World. Link consistently 404s for me, tested on two different browsers.  This suggests that someone thought better of posting it for whatever reason.  If it's fixed that can be easily changed back. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 21:23, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * And now I put it back. Looks like one of the ickle numbers got left out. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 21:25, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah fuck. I blame my browser. Sorry about that. Even so, it's quite an interesting development. 21:51, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Its a troll by the Admin of 420chan. http://boards.420chan.org/b/thread/5078930#5079323 Revolverman (talk) 23:06, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The Watkin allegation came out last June, and is already incorporated on the QAnon page. Bongolian (talk) 05:14, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Good News
So, I check Drudge Report every so often, gotta keep informed of how others are being (mis)informed. Honestly, it's actually not a terrible aggregator site as far as the intertubes are concerned, which is admittedly a very low bar. Anyway, Drudge polled his readers about whether they'd take a COVID vaccine, and the answer was 60% said yes. This is extremely encouraging, since his followers tend to be a bit... out there, which means a hell of a lot more than 60% of people are willing to take the vaccine. This means that we are going to be vaccinating people as fast as the vaccines can be produced, and we will effectively have herd immunity soon enough and can remove most of the lockdowns and actually start putting the pieces back together. CoryUsar (talk) 21:03, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not impressed. 1) It's an unscientific poll. Even if it happened to be representative, it would not get us to herd immunity. 2) For highly communicable diseases such as measles, herd immunity is 90%+ for vaccination/exposed population. An unpublished study from a representative sample of a regional US subpopulation indicates that COVID exposure is likely close to 1%. Biased samples indicate that it is certainly less than 10%. Bongolian (talk) 03:00, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course it's unscientific, his readers range from right of center to the nuttiest of wingnuts. But a poll of wingnuts is suggesting that most of them would take a vaccine, meaning that in all likelihood, the overwhelming majority of people would take a vaccine.  As for Herd Immunity, the base reproductive rate depends upon society as much as it does the disease itself.  If we decided to have group sleep, where the entire town slept in a giant pile in the center of town, the base reproductive rate of a disease is going to be much, much higher than one where everyone has their own bedroom.  We can alter the base reproductive rate in other ways; longterm monogamous relationships instead of numerous flings, routine handwashing and other hygienic practices, thorough cooking of food, water filtration systems, etc etc.  Measles, in our current society, has a base reproductive rate of around 15, but can vary wildly in different communities in the same country.  But, overall, in order to have herd immunity when the BRE is 15, you need 14 out of 15 to be immune.  That comes out to be around 93%.  We aren't sure of COVID's BRE, we think it's around 2.5, though we got that down below 1 with hard lockdowns for a time.  Regardless, that just means 60% of people have to become immune for herd immunity to exist.  Far, far more people have had the disease than the news has been reporting; we believe to mortality rate is 1 in 150, so take the deaths (250,000) and multiply by 150, so you get 38 million people who've had it already.  That's about 1/9 of the country so far. CoryUsar (talk) 15:07, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Wingnuts aren't a great indicator of what the majority believe or will do. Twodots (talk) 17:49, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If you read stories between Gallup, Pew, and especially (from a global perspective) Ipsos, I would estimate that provided that the vaccine was demonstrated to be safe and without side effects, the number who would take the vaccine would look like the Ipsos poll at minimum (about 67% of Americans). The countries that tended score worst in the Ipsos polls aren't too surprising as Russia, Poland, and Hungary are the countries with the most populist authoritarian strongmen, and it is not surprising for people to be wary of a populist strongman pushing snake oil bullshit. (And there is France, que?) I think these numbers are certain to go up with demonstrated safety.
 * As a sampling aside for a pointless Internet poll, I will also note that Drudge has broken from the Trump crowd in the last couple of years, thus I expect that his readers are less likely to have the what-the-fuck kind of nuttiness you find in, say, the Breitbart commentary section. 72.184.174.199 (talk) 19:03, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The real problem's centered around the vaccine itself. After personally experiencing some unreliable pharmaceutical drugs, the prospect of taking a rushed vaccine developed by businesses with almost no limits on them, and with significant political and media pressure to finish the drug as fast as possible, seems scary to me. It doesn't help that Moderna is trotting out their 94 percent success rate. Numbers as high as that seem too good to be true. What's most concerning about this is that if it doesn't create immunization, or worse, actively harms those taking it, the vaccine nutters or maybe even all of Fox News & Co will be ranting about a "Biden conspiracy to make a poisonous vaccine." Just like that, ANY vaccine for herd immunity is off the table, because a significant portion of the population will refuse to take a vaccine the Biden administration was even partially involved in. IveBeenFrank (talk) 16:16, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * As I've said, COVID has a BRE of 2.5, so you only need 60% of people to be immunized through vaccines or infections for herd immunity to exist. CoryUsar (talk) 16:39, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Judging by our recent presidential election, we'd be very lucky to get 55+ percent of people to be immunized if the situation I described ever occurs. IveBeenFrank (talk) 17:04, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * And since 11% of people already had COVID, well, there's your herd immunity :P CoryUsar (talk) 18:42, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * And anywhere from 30 to 50 percent of those will not develop a robust immunity from coronavirus . IveBeenFrank (talk) 18:46, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * And by the way, the Mayo Clinic says experts are averaging at a 70% immunization rate. A | paper published in Nature estimates a 67 percent immunity rate for France, a country with far lower natural COVID rates, far more societal focus on beating the virus, and far more protections in place than much of the U.S. IveBeenFrank (talk) 18:52, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Another suspicious poll
The "political opinions" poll has 47 votes for the Authoritarian Right. Seemed kinda suspicious. Twodots (talk) 18:24, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There's a good reason why those polls are called pointless. Bongolian (talk) 18:27, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Good point... Twodots (talk) 18:33, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Rudy will get to the bottom of this. --RWRW (talk) 19:45, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Who's Rudy? Twodots (talk) 19:48, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Rudy Giuliani, Trump's "lawyer" and longtime pal.IveBeenFrank (talk) 19:51, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure RWx2 was referring to a user. I might be wrong, though. Twodots (talk) 19:59, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * RWRW is referring to Rudy Giuliani. — <font color="Purple">Oxyaena <font color="Red">Harass  23:20, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Aperol
anyone here familiar with AperolLeucippus (talk) 20:10, 17 November 2020 (UTC), I just mix it with fizzy water these days, much more economical.
 * Sounds like a brand of gas. Not ringing any bells. Twodots (talk) 20:19, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Its a drink m'boy: an alcoholic beverage, or so they tell me. At any rate, its usually mixed in cocktails or with prosecco to make Aperol Spritz, and I've just so happened to find drinking it with plain ol-sparkling water to be quite to my liking. Leucippus (talk) 21:05, 17 November 2020 (UTC) sealed and delivered!!
 * Okie dokie. Twodots (talk) 21:24, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Trump 2024
Marc Thiessen a hack with a stupid face, lays out a plan for Trump to return to the White House in 2024. There is a snowballs chance in hell he could possibly understand the damage he is doing to the executive office, and he refuses to do any work to elect anyone, but it's clear Trump will be on top of the ticket again.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 20:26, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There's a peculiar news item (Fuck sake, any other administration, in any other country it would be headline news.) but Mr Drain the Swamp with his rat-licking "he's fighting the 'deep-state' fanatics seems to be doing what he's actively promoted himself to be opposed to. Ron Sanders the Chairman of the Federal Salary Council resigned. His resignation letter somehow leaked and it's a barn burner. Basically, Trump is trying to create a new type a federal worker, under Schedule F, which instead of being hired on merit, they are hired based on personal connections and/or political beliefs . In essence legalising the very fucking suspect "burrowing in" he and his followers oppose. Cardinal Chang (talk) 22:36, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Anyone heard about "The Great Reset"?
Would this merit an article on RW? This is a topic that needs to be addressed as it also ties in the new world order BS we hear again and again. Please.
 * Each conspiracy priest has their own way of indoctrinating more followers. That is how James Corbett does it. He has been spreading it for quite some while now, even before the pandemic. The “New Normal” is almost synonymous to The “Great Reset,” it only sounds scarier. We could create a draft that we could edit, but this is not a very popular topic, so not many people will expand it and it will likely remain incomplete forever unless someone has done complete research on the topic and has the time and motivation to do so. 02:11, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

The War on Stubs (Week 1)
All right, sober up you drunks! The War on Stubs has been declared. Every Saturday for the next couple of weeks, I will nominate a crappy stub for deletion and make a big song and dance about it in the saloon bar. I do this to bring attention to the large number of low quality stubs which plague our glorious mainspace, and also to encourage the patrons of this fine establishment to take a break from their usual mind-numbing shitposting intellectual discourse and instead engage in some unpaid janitorial work!

I would never criticise ANYONE who only uses this website to hang out with like-minded people to have the chats. If having conversations with other weirdos on the internet makes you happy, then I am happy for you (I do it too, albeit in other locations on the inter-webs). I am not pressuring or shaming anyone into anything and if you don't wanna help out, that's totally fine. Editing the mainspace and patrolling recent changes isn't exactly the most glamorous pastime in the world. But if you are feeling REALLY bored, then consider checking out RationalWiki:Articles_for_deletion. It's a small thing anyone can help with, with minimal effort.

This week I am nominating our stub on the organisation called Queer Nation. The subject seems highly missional. The stub? Not so much. Have a read, and let me know whether you agree or disagree with me.

May your keyboards always be deadly. Peace. - Rairyu75  ( Talk ) 14:20, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Why not improve the stubs? --Channel 48 WDEM-TV3 (talk) 21:04, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, the age-old "Deletionism vs. Inclusionism" debate. -- Goatspeed. 04:42, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I appreciate what you're trying to do. But I'd have to agree that nominating the pages for deletion may not be the best way to tackle the stub problem. I suggest that each week you nominate a "Stub if the Week" and make a big song and dance about that. It can be a sticky thread that's always the first post in this here Saloon Bar. You can make a big deal of it on your user page too. Encourage people who can to actually do something to improve the stubs. I'd say that if nothing has been done to improve a page a month after you've nominated it as your "Stub of the Week", then you can nominate it for deletion. Spud (talk) 00:32, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I refuse to concede to this kind of blackmail to sober up! If you continue with this kind of action Rairyu, I will nominate for that stub of a userbox on your userpage to be deleted. Grumble grumble and all that drunken nonsense. 17:01, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Kay, will do (you are like the third or fourth person to suggest this). I hereby declare the War on Stubs to be over (sigh... It only lasted 24 hours... what a failure). Next Saturday I will begin the Stub of the Week. Minus the part where I "encourage" specific people to edit. Ordering drunks around is never a good idea. *Glances at Knight Commander* - Rairyu75  ( Talk ) 19:11, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

A new user has appeared!
Hello, everyone. I'm a new editor here at RationalWiki (and as a wiki editor as a whole), and I'm kind of lost. Does anyone have an idea on where I should start out? JusticeTheFoxGirl (talk) 05:10, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Fix typos, get a feel for the editing process and our style. Chat at the bar-Hastur! (talk)  05:12, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This place does seem pretty friendly. I think I'll get used to it here. JusticeTheFoxGirl (talk) 05:25, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Throw a Master_Ball, it's shiny! Artificius (talk) 05:33, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Welcome to being Operating Sysop Level I. To reach OS level II, all it takes is a tiny donation of $5,000 in nonsequential unmarked bills, and we will clear your mind of fallen angels and reveal new truths. CoryUsar (talk) 06:28, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Dude, the fact that I lost a thousand dollars or ¥10000000 to the People's Glorious Republic of Sakhalin has sadly made any further donations untenable for the time being. Artificius (talk) 08:34, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Read the manual of style, and don't be afraid to keep the wikitext reference at hand when editing, hang out a bit in the bar, do some editing if you feel like it. Enjoy your time here and don't be afraid to pull up a Goat and bleat away with any questions you might have ^^. 13:01, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Welcome to RationalWiki, we have cookies. --Channel 48 WDEM-TV3 (talk) 16:45, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Not anymore. I ate em'. Twodots (talk) 16:49, 16 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Welcome to RationalWiki! -- Goatspeed. 19:21, 16 November 2020 (UTC)


 * You could do anti Trump stuff or social justice things. All of the Kent Hovind refutation is covered. Oh and grab some cookies and a goat, we're not only ultra smart but wacky and fun. Midwit Nerd 3.142 (talk) 19:49, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note that the suggestion to "grab some cookies and a goat" is referring to the use of goats as a source of milk, thereby invoking the classic, wholesome, and not at all objectionable snackage known as "Milk and Cookies". At least, that's what I hope Midwit is suggesting.  Because otherwise it can get potentially squicky. Kencolt (talk) 20:59, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe he wants to take one on a road trip. Goats are great travel buddies. Twodots (talk) 21:04, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Twodots, please indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you.
 * As for my goat fetish, it's mostly about the fact that you can make cheese from their milk and its SO delicious.
 * And welcome to RationalWiki JusticeTheFoxGirl. 21:59, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I fixed it. :) Twodots (talk) 23:20, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, by the way, if the indents are getting silly long, you can do what I did here by putting  in front of your update. Then further editors can continue the indentations from 1. 23:32, 16 November 2020 (UTC)


 * This thread had me thinking. We could make a "how to" guide. Like, find someone opposed to social justice, who suggests people aren't all equal, and call them a pseudoscientist and debunked, and put in some criticism. The criticism doesn't really have to make sense, the labelling is more important. So that's easy for people with no understanding of the relevant subject to write articles. Midwit Nerd 3.142 (talk) 09:02, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * We already have one. And if by "suggesting people aren't all equal" you mean "cherry-picking scientific studies to 'prove' how one type of person is inherently better than another and therefore deserves special treatment"- and if many scientists have pointed out that it doesn't make said group better than others and that correlation is not causation- then yes, that is psuedoscience, and such people can and will be ridiculed as peddlers of such on here. -- Goatspeed. 22:50, 18 November 2020 (UTC)