RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive397

The saloon went 131 minutes without a post
Which ended now. Andrew5 (talk) 12:11, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Canadian election
What are your thoughts on its outcome? Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 03:31, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, the NDP seems to have gained seats, the Conservatives didn't win, and the People's Party didn't win a seat, so I have nothing to complain about. Plutocow (talk) 03:34, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I wasn't planning on voting this year, but I made an off-the-cuff decision to vote by mail. The ballot was a lot easier to complete than I thought; just need to write the candidate's name. The forms I completed for the math contests I did in high school were a lot more complicated, with all the bubbles and boxes to fill in. I voted liberal to stop the conservatives. LongStylus (talk) 04:37, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * To answer your question, the outcome is good. A liberal minority is what I wanted, with the NDP hopefully pushing the liberals to the left. LongStylus (talk) 05:26, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This election highlights well the insanity of first-past-the-post Westminster style systems. The conservatives got more votes than the Liberals but the liberals got nearly 50% more seats than the Conservatives. The NDP got about half the votes of the Liberals but ended up with 10% of the seats the liberals got. The PPC got twice as many votes as the Greens, but the greens got 2 seats and the PPC got zero. With very few exceptions, most majority elected governments in the last century ended up getting an absolute majority with around 40% of the vote. In Canada/UK/Barbados etc, there is no president or senate that can effectively block anything, so with an absolute majority you can do virtually whatever you want within constitutional limits, even though 60% of the people did not vote for them. Trudeau reneged on his promise for electoral form pretty much the moment he was elected. Because, why would the conservatives or liberals give up a system where the two alternate ruling, usually with majorities, with less than half the over all vote...when the alternative is a future of forever minority or coalition governments? In other words, despite all of Trudeau's presentation as a just, fair, woke, progressive...he is barely any of those. But then that is the story of almost all political leaders. AT LEAST...it wasn't the fracaso that the US elections were. Canada has an impartial electoral board nation wide. That means: no provincial or local government can limit postal ballots, number of poll stations, giving out water in the queue, fucking around with voting hours or any other shit. You have a minimal wait in line and democracy in theory prevails (except the completely skewed seat count). Despite postal ballots needing counting, results are known almost always that night. They are rarely contested. Shabi  DOO  08:56, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorta seems like this election was a big waste of time. Liberals were seeking a majority government, they failed to get it. Conservatives sought become the primary player in a coalition and were undermined by a rising right-wing party. Almost certainly won't see another snap election, probably won't see Trudeau on the top ticket either. In terms of the US, it's good.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 17:29, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I feel bad for the Canadian Conservative Party. This is the second time in a roll that they receive more votes than the Liberal party. And yet, they lost once again. Actually, I'd say the Canadian population is far more conservative than people think. IIRC the Conservative party only "lost" two elections in the popular vote this century. They are moderate conservatives, not GOP nuts, but not rabid liberals as some people think. Indeed, during my exchange school in Toronto 16 years ago I think most people I met there were moderate conservatives, and that's in a city where half of the population is not even white. GeeJayK (talk) 19:50, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Canada has only one party on the right side of the political spectrum (that actually could win seats) so conservative is the only party to vote for, unlike in Europe where there can be several choices with proportional representation. So yeah, some elections they get 40% of the vote. But "conservative" is relative. By American standards the conservative party are practically socialists. The Canadian conservative party is far more progressive than the American democratic party. Their platform completely supports maintaining healthcare, abortion, gay rights, social programs, accepting of climate change and "some" response to it, strong COVID response etc. If you zoom in, there is a difference between liberals and conservatives. The liberals will push for a few more progressive issues, maintain a little more regulation and start up a new program (like government subsidised day care) and will get things like euthanasia laws passed a decade sooner than the conservatives would get around to it, but if you zoom out...there is actually little difference between the conservatives and liberals. On a scale of 1 to 10 I would put them at 4.5 and 5.5. A trifling difference. The country has been a yo-yo between the two parties for decades. I don't feel good or sorry for either of them as both of them fiercely resist proportional representation, so if they don't get the seats that their votes would deserve, well...that is in all practicality what they want in a sense...isn't it? Shabi  DOO  20:02, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with most of what you said, but in general I don't really think the Conservative Party is more progressive than the American Democratic Party. Let's not forget that even this year a considerable part of the Conservatives were still skeptic about Global Warming (theoretically not a right-wing opinion, but you got my point). Besides, the Conservatives do embrace to some extent fiscal responsibility, something that I believe almost all Democrats (and ironically, a considerable part of the Republicans as well) gave up. Perhaps in social matters they are not that different to centrist party, but I do think they are still on average a rather decent centre-right party. GeeJayK (talk) 20:17, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The Democratic Party is not necessarily more right-wing than the Conservative Party. In some ways, the Democrats are further to the left than the Liberals. They advocated for a $15 minimum wage (although they didn't actually do it) and free post-secondary education for people making under $125,000. LongStylus (talk) 21:34, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I will definitely concede in some cases that the US dems can be more progressive than Canadian conservatives. Having said that, I am less interested in the US democrats platform than their actual record and what anyone could possibly believe they really want to do or could reasonably pull off. The US has three powers which all block one another (president, filibustered senate and house) while the Canadian parliament has only one truly effective power (house of commons). With an absolute majority Canadian governments do whatever they want and pass most of their platform (though they certainly always break a few promises or "run out of time"). While in the US it is hard to think of a recent democrat government, even when they are in control of both houses and the oval office...managing to pass a fraction of the shit they promise (re: voting against party, letting bills die, not getting enough support, etc). Some dems can promise whatever they like, it's hard to believe they are as meaningful in their platforms. It basically means you can take Canadian party's platforms a lot more seriously as they can actually pass most of what they promise depending on how they prioritise. As minimum wage is a provincial issue I don't see how the federal government in Canada could change that. Since many provinces/territories already have $15 minimum wage or more, the only thing the government could do is pressure the provinces to raise their national wage with incentives (something they aren't going to put into their platforms). As for free university, this is also a provincial issue and does anyone actually believe any democrat government will actually put that into place in the next couple decades? In any case, the point is, if you chart them on some nebulous graph, I would put the liberals, conservatives and at least what the US national democrats say they want to do...all within the same sort of blob. Shabi  DOO  10:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

If you mess with the goat, you get the horns
I thought this might be a funny little bit for all you goat aficionados out there: Canada: mountain goat kills attacking grizzly bear with ‘dagger-like’ horns NastyNugget (talk) 06:17, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I must admit I have never considered fucking around with a mountain goat Shabi  DOO  10:00, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Does that mean you have considered fucking around with a grizzly bear? Kencolt (talk) 00:35, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't knock fucking around with a grizzly bear until you have tried it. Shabi  DOO

The Northeast is about to get flooded, AGAIN
Storms to soak Northeast. While this 3 week "drought" was nice, 1-2 inches per hour could be catastrophic, just like Ida was. Andrew5 (talk) 14:55, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You could be forgiven if you thought you were in Florida, the weather has been terrible in New England all summer; it's almost surprising when we don't have a lightning storm in the afternoon or evening. Since I enjoy hiking, it's seriously cut into my ability to get outside at all. And since I live right by a small river, during the last one I had to flee at 11 PM to higher ground and barely made it; looks like my section of CT will likely be spared the worst, but that still won't guarantee having to flee again. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 15:13, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 2021 has been a really big flareup. Andrew5 (talk) 17:05, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah. There's a reason farmers fled New England as fast as they could; this area is absolutely littered with stone walls in the middle of the woods. Why anyone came to some of these hills and thought, "Hey, we could farm here" will never make sense to me; the soil is awful for almost everything (besides the famed rocky soil, blueberries are about the only crop that thrives in the acidity), the landscape is terrible, and the weather does crazy shit every year. On the one hand 5 years ago the Colebrook Reservoir was so dry you could walk out into the middle of it, and on the opposite end we've also had Connie and Diane in living memory for many people. Most people who live up here hate dealing with it, I happen to like the harsh winters (2010-2011 was epic) but the constant rain is getting really old. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 00:27, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Connie and Diane was in 1955. I think another good example was Irene and Lee in 2011. And then the blizzard in October 2011, too. One year ago it was night - nights actually dipped into the 40s, and we were in a D0 drought. I was flash floods had categories - Ida would certainly be a 5, Henri probably would be a 3 or 4, Elsa would probably be a 2 or 3. Fred would probably just be a 1. Tornadoes here, and especially near Phillie, were crazy. PA saw their first EF3 since 2004 and NJ since 1990. Meanwhile, all the rain being dumped here could be appreciated in California and whatnot, and other areas caught in D3 and D4 drought. If only Dolores, Enrique, Nora and Olaf could have spread further north, the same way other similar systems have. I'll compile a list later.
 * Also, one more thing - '54 was also kind of crazy (Carol, Edna (which was a big flood disaster) and even Hazel). Andrew5 (talk) 13:50, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Bye bye summer and hello fall! (Or bye bye winter and hello spring in the Southern Hemisphere)
September equinox occurs at 19:20 UTC today. Sorry about the typo, as the clocks in the USA shift back on November 7 this year (thank god). Andrew5 (talk) 00:23, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The first week of fall is characterized by low 90s F/low 30 C. It's summer here still. Fuck summer. 00:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Here where I live on average is 72°F(22°C) high and 56°F(13°C) at night. But tomorrow (today UTC) the high is projected as 78°F(26°C) and 68°F(20°C) as it is way warmer then average. Andrew5 (talk) 01:04, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Today’s high was 102F, low of 74F. Almost 39C and 23C. Sure do wish it’d rain. Probliknaut (talk) 02:39, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You can have as much of ours as you like, I'd happily send it your way. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 02:56, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Haha, okay let me go get our infrastructure fixed to accommodate rainfall first… Probliknaut (talk) 03:19, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I've been asking you all for rain. Please, pretty please? I want some of that rain. 03:35, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Have you tried doing a Rain Dance? 2A02:1812:2C66:D000:54E4:FC61:CF87:9FBC (talk) 08:23, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I’d be more then happy if you can teleport our storm system to your location. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 10:46, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

~2-3 minutes ago, the sun crossed the celestial equator. It is officially fall in the northern hemisphere and spring in the southern. The December solstice will occur at 15:59 UTC on December 21. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 19:24, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It’s called Autumn! Leucippus Sapere aude 19:26, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Both are acceptible. Anyway, we better agree on one now, or this bickering will continue for the next 90 days! Andrew5 (talk) 19:28, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Do you guys know any Arabic?
BeardOfZeus (talk) 03:58, 15 September 2021 (UTC)


 * 0. Buck (talk) 09:02, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Just couple of individual words I learned from a Moroccan colleague. 09:04, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I am familiar with some religious phrases in Arabic such as inshallah and mashallah, but nothing else. Any dialects in mind or just Modern Standard Arabic? LongStylus (talk) 14:53, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Everyone knows some Arabic words. Alchemy, algebra, alcohol, coffee, hazard, tariff, etc.  15:44, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * (to piggy back on CorruptUser) sure! Hummus, baklava, shawarma…Probliknaut (talk) 21:11, 15 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Wait, isn't baklava Turkish? G Man (talk) 05:39, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Speaking of shawarma, it kind of puzzled me at the end of the avengers movie when iron man says he doesnt know what it is and wants try it. are kebabs that uncommon in the us? doners are ubiquitous in uk and europe (and obviously the middle/near east) AMassiveGay (talk) 09:26, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen a döner (or iskender) kebab at all over here, and in general the word kebab—often spelled kabob—seems to invoke mental images of grilled meat and veg on a stick. Greek gyros exist, though. Kntai (talk) 09:35, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, kebab (with the silly and common kabob misspelling and all) in the United States typically is thought of as, which is only one of many types as we all know. It is in my experience relatively uncommon to find non-West Europe Mediterranean and Middle East cuisine in the US, though it's at least not completely unknown these days. The exception is Greek cuisine, probably due to a fairly strong Greek immigrant community that has been around in significant numbers for 100+ years in certain parts. Gyros are way more common than shawarma. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 14:18, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * tabouli tells you everything you need to know about Arab culutre. It takes an incredible amount of patience just to make it. Dutchbag (talk) 00:32, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * or 30 minutes according to bbc food. dunno where you getting 'incredible amount of patience' from. ive made it myself. AMassiveGay (talk) 08:53, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I Know some arabic football players. Ameer Abdullah is doing pretty well for the vikings. TheNFLGuy (talk) 20:21, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Your thoughts on the death penalty?
If you want my opinion on this - in general, it should be banned, but with the notable exception of people who we are completely sure are beyond irredeemable. For example, leaders of drug cartels, political criminals and dictators and serial killers. What even is the point of keeping them alive when that costs money? For crimes that are not as horrible as mentioned, but are still horrible (Murderers, serial rapists, child predators) they can still be jailed permanently with the premise that they can leave jail if they atoned, I'm fine with that, but most importantly I'm in favor of due process. 11:46, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It is categorically immoral to pointlessly murder someone when it is easily avoided. A state killing a human being because of any crime they committed is pointless murder which is easily avoided. It is pointless because there exists alternatives in dealing with the punishment of their crime which do not pose a threat to you (injury or death). Life in prison without the possibility of parole is one example (which I would argue is also immoral but that is another conversation). To recap:
 * Easily avoidable killing = immoral murder
 * All executions are easily avoidable killing
 * All executions are immoral
 * On an aside, I would not want to live in a country where the government murders its citizens and a majority of people consider this a great and just idea. America is currently the only Western non-dysfunctional democracy doing this which is one more example of modern "American exceptionalism". I find it disturbing that even some progressive "woke" people in America stand by the death penalty. Shabi  DOO  12:00, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * if we are doing this one again (it seems like we go other this every week), then you say 'in general, it should be banned, but with the notable exception' then you are pro death penalty, dont bother with the 'in general' bullshit. you are either for it or against it. and your notable exceptions - political criminals? thats super stalinist of you.
 * i'll state my position (again) - the death penalty is barbaric in all cases. end it it now everywhere AMassiveGay (talk) 12:01, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * also of other tcs notable exceptions, they all the people who currently do get executed stateside plus some who do not. thats not banned  'in general' thats full throated support AMassiveGay (talk) 12:06, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * and why are leaders of drug cartels, political criminals and dictators and serial killers irredeemable but Murderers, serial rapists, child predators are? this is a probelm with the death penalty - its as arbitrary as it is barbaric. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:09, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * what makes someone irredeemable? what makes rehabilitation impossible? you know who cant be rehabilitated? the executed AMassiveGay (talk) 12:12, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm completely opposed to the death penalty because it serves no purpose and wastes everyone's time. But everyone here knew that already. 12:49, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Death penalty is stupid imo. Senioritas (talk) 13:53, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Death penalty is a bad idea imo. It puts us as the ultimate arbiters of right and wrong and assumes the justice system cannot err. Which is patently false. As long as there is a possibility for wrong convictions, which there will pretty much always be, the death penalty is in my eyes unconscionable. -- Techpriest (talk) 14:07, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I oppose the death penalty except for mass murderers with video evidence. They clearly deserve it. (20+ people) -Andrew5 (talk) 14:12, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Why? What purpose does it serve? 14:20, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * People like Omar Mateen deserve to die. I think such mass murderers would still cause disruption in prison until the day that they die, best to get it over with. It's not cruel to shoot down an airline full of terrorists. That's the logic I'm going for. But it shouldn't be 20 years from imprisonment to execution. It should be within a few years, IMHO. Andrew5 (talk) 16:23, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes but why? What does killing them do? You aren't going to win me over with moralistic posturing, as moralism isn't why I'm opposed to execution. 16:27, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * well, for a mass murderer, it might save the prison, for one, and for two, I don’t want anyone who killed 50 people to even be on the earth. It’s to spare other prisoners. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 20:01, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * How would it save the prison? What would it save the prison from? As for your continued moral proclamations, I said I wouldn't be swayed by them and I do mean that. 20:06, 19 September 2021 (UTC)


 * All right, I think I read enough comments to rebuke. First, I'll go over the fact that the current status quo is If someone did something very horrible they are sent to jail to rot until their very last breath which is what concerns me, this basically is the exact same as murder, but instead of killing them straight off, they have to rot in their cage until they inevitably die of either natural causes or suicide, not only that, but as I had stated previously it costs money to keep them fed and healthy, same money could be used much more intelligently (And I'm not talking about military funds which I also wish would get cut). Reducing the death penalty to "barbaric murder" is an appeal to emotions, all the while completely dismissing the benefits of it: saving on money, and giving a sentence to criminals that is far less cruel. And yes, I used the term "cruel" correctly here. And I singled out serial killers, dictators and poilitical criminals (Which I should add that I'm speaking about those who committed real political atrocities like the scientists who worked for Hitler, I'm not talking about merely pissing on the government, perhaps I should have defined "political criminal" better), and leaders of drug cartels because I know they will either not stop doing what they're doing out of jail and, therefore, that makes them a danger to society, or they have done so much wrong that they will never reintegrate into society. Pedophiles can be castrated if they are repeat offenders, and someone who murders someone else tend to do so out of anger for that other person, it is generally due to a dispute in other words. They pose actually very little threat to society as a whole.
 * Out of all of this the only good argument I've read was "It puts us as the ultimate arbiters of right and wrong and assumes the justice system cannot err." though, I would argue that's somewhat irrelevant in today's landscape as there are people who are still falsely arrested and put to jail or registered into the sex offender registry over false or frivolous accusations, but as far as I am concerned we are not banning putting people to jail just because the judiciary system does not work. There are however Socialists who want to abolish the judiciary system and the police for that exact reason. I think it is fair of an opinion because at least it is consistent. 14:33, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Wow, nice strawman. 14:37, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The only strawman is the moralist rhetoric I have witnessed throughout this thread. Shabidoo stated this:
 * Easily avoidable killing = immoral murder
 * All executions are easily avoidable killing
 * All executions are immoral
 * Which is as much of an appeal to emotion as it can get. What information am I supposed to glean from reading this? 14:41, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * And their other argument which was "It is categorically immoral to pointlessly murder someone when it is easily avoided. A state killing a human being because of any crime they committed is pointless murder which is easily avoided. It is pointless because there exists alternatives in dealing with the punishment of their crime which do not pose a threat to you (injury or death)." is exactly what I was pointing at by mentioning serial killers. One-off killers shouldn't even be sent to jail permanently. 14:43, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Let's not even talk about AMassiveGay who basically threw a fit, but at least I hope they understand now that I further explained my stance on death penalty. 14:45, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I love how you argued against only one person while claiming to argue against everyone. Oh wait, that's a form of strawmanning? Wow, what kind of dishonest hack would do such a thing?... 14:51, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The only argument worth answering in my second post was techpriest's, but since you are adamant about it, I'll do you the favor: "I'm completely opposed to the death penalty because it serves no purpose and wastes everyone's time. But everyone here knew that already.", oh wait I already answer what purpose it served on my second post, "all the while completely dismissing the benefits of it: saving on money, and giving a sentence to criminals that is far less cruel." learn to read. 14:55, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * And please, for the love of goat, read EVERYTHING, don't make me repeat myself twice. 14:57, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Really? Looks more like you just glossed over an issue so you could argue from some gut level moralism. Primary cost drains from the death penalty include: The actual execution process and materials for it, the appeals process, the actual trial, housing the inmates. The cost argument falls apart completely when you realize that we could just aggressively work to rectify poverty and be more lenient on non-violent minor offenses, which would in turn lead to lower overhead. So basically all I have to do is take your argument out of an abstract bubble and observe it in reality. As for cruelty, it's amusing as all fuck for you to mock morality and emotion while arguing from those same motivators. I honestly don't give a fuck. 15:02, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd be against the death penalty, except for something that happened a couple weeks ago.
 * Sirhan Sirhan was convicted of murdering Senator Robert F Kennedy, the younger brother of John F Kennedy. RFK was at the time the frontrunner for the Democratic nominee for President, all but assuring him the spot.  Instead, the Democrats had to go with Hubert Humphrey, LBJ's uncharismatic and unpopular vice president.  George Wallace was in the race on the pro-segregation ticket, splitting the Democratic vote, and giving Nixon a win with a .6% margin.  Had RFK won the nomination, in all likelihood RFK would've won the 1968 presidency.  Instead, we had Nixon, who all in all, was actually far better than people give him credit for; abortion only happened because of Nixon, a fact neither party wants known.
 * Regardless of this being a "good" or "bad" outcome, the very fact is that Sirhan Sirhan altered the course of American history. He was sentenced to death for his actions.
 * Then, California banned executions, and commuted his sentence to life in prison. Ok, fine, he'll be there forever.
 * But a few weeks ago? He was recommended for parole, and in all likelihood will be released.  A man who was supposed to be executed is going to walk free.
 * One of the arguments against the death penalty is that it isn't actually necessary when there's no possibility of the person walking free. But guess what?  Here's Sirhan Sirhan, who was supposed to be executed, and now he's walking free.  So that whole argument is blatantly shit.  15:03, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of that argument, and how flimsy it is. You can't guaratee that an inmate will never walk. Hence why I don't make it. It's a dud check that you can't cash. 15:08, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

The death penalty is immoral, serves no purpose, is no deterrent and leaves any state which uses it in the same position as any other mass murderer bent on vengeance. It reforms nobody, deters very few and often kills innocent people. It has no redeeming qualities and has no place in civilized society.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:07, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * For now, I'll just leave this here. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒  talk  15:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Due process is cheaper than housing a serial killer ALL THEIR LIFE! Secondly, you jumped over the fact that I stated that death penalty should be reserved for the worst offenders, what are you trying to imply when you say "be more lenient on non-violent minor offenses". The issue with poverty has got nothing to do with the ethics of death penalty, you're going on a tangent. 15:33, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You're misrepresenting the point, and as I stated earlier I don't support its uses in most cases like its use on one-off murderers. I don't even support permanent enprisonment for one-off killers. 15:37, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't miss it at all. Read my post again. Is there something which is unclear? How can you possibly support killing people?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:40, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I support the state killing of serial killers because they serve no purpose to society and will go killing random people on the streets. I hope once the zodiac killer gets captured he immediately gets sentenced to death, that's all he deserves. 15:54, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * "Moralistic arguments are bad, except when support my pre-existing beliefs." 15:58, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * There are many people who you could argue "serve no purpose to society" - are you going to kill everyone you think is in this category?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:02, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about criminals, not the disabled. Don't conflate the two. The idea of permanent emprisonment came from the fact that if someone cannot be reintegrated into society, might as well keep them behind bars. Detestable criminals who committed atrocities eat up the resources of the prison, same resources which could be used for universal healthcare (And also, cut the fucking funds off the military jeez), so they would be better off sentenced to death to avoid that inconvenience. 16:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I love how TransChicken is now ignoring me rather than engaging. Also the highly emotional and moralistic language they're using after they condemned Shabidoo for that very same thing. But hey, I didn't use any moralistic or emotional language and approached the problem from an empirical and practical perspective, so what do I know? 16:20, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You don't argue in good faith, so I stopped caring about you. What did you get convicted for by the way, since you randomly spilled that onto the table? 16:27, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't argue in good faith? Seems more like you can't formulate arguments against me pointing out holes in your logic. As for what I was convicted of, that would be a felony. Not that it matters beyond me pointing out that I know what inmates experience, since I was one, is a pretty valid counter-argument. 16:32, 19 September 2021 (UTC)


 * "The issue with poverty has got nothing to do with the ethics of death penalty" AHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAAHHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAAHHAAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHZAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHAHAHA HAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHA HAHAHAAHAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! "Poverty has nothing to do with crime", next you're going to tell me God and Satan exist lmfao! "Secondly, you jumped over the fact that I stated that death penalty should be reserved for the worst offenders, what are you trying to imply when you say "be more lenient on non-violent minor offenses"." The death penalty is an childish and moralistic system of dealing with crime. Everything in the criminal justice system is interconnected. Way to show your ignorance. As for cost, I can't help it if you're too much of an illiterate ideolog to understand how accounting works. 15:44, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Fix the judiciary system then, as I stated earlier death penalty or not, innocents get put behind bars for life and that's a fate worse than death. 15:54, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * But if they are subsequently found to be innocent they can be released! Are you really suggesting that state murder is preferable, to this? Why would you think that state murder is good for anyone, let alone innocent people? &mdash; Unsigned, by: Bob M / talk / contribs
 * I said I supported due process, unless there is written proof that someone committed atrocities then they won't be sentenced to death, but I guess Americans have been too acustomed to a dysfunctional judiciary system with a dysfunctional due process to try something that could potentially work. 16:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Lol that's not how it works. But again, please do explain to an ex-con what being incarcerated is like. 15:56, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * written proof? what does that even mean? signed confession maybe? im sure thats never gone wrong before AMassiveGay (talk) 16:22, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Visual proof? Like camera footage? I was refering to written proof by scientists, not a confession, and not random eye witnesses who can't be trusted for anything crime-related. &mdash; Unsigned, by: TransChicken / talk / contribs
 * (EC)This certainly isn't TransChickens' finest hour...
 * On a more serious note, since we are having this discussion again, I oppose the death penalty as a means of "justice." It's basically security theater mixed with bloodsport.-Flandres (talk) 16:31, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I do think there is a place for the death penalty. It should not be invoked for routine murders.  I do not think it is a deterrent; the people I would put to death are probably immune to deterrence even if it worked.  But I do think that nothing less would be suitable for a McVeigh or a Breivik; I would reserve it for terroristic or cause-related murders.  In these cases the chance of landing the wrong person in the gurney is pretty nonexistent.  There will be manifestos and similar screeds in the perp's own hand all over the place.  The only reason for doing it here is catharsis, or if you prefer, revenge.  No lesser penalty is adequate for these criminals. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 18:28, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * such people have been radicalised some how. they can be deradicalised. in the mean time they cannot harm society in prison. i note breviks did not receive a death sentence. i wager more people are likely to be radicalised by mcveigh execution, than breviks imprisonment. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:57, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Argumentation
You all are really fucking bad at it. Most of you are arguing from gut level moralism (as opposed to a well thought out system of ethics), which is of course not convincing anyone since such arguments are fundamentally irrational. I also love how little attention is paid to the position of an ex-inmate, who was born and raised in the nation's top death penalty state, and who has actually read up crime, governance, sociology and philosophy. It's really funny honestly. 16:38, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Your arguments are pretty solid, but for one thing. TC stated that they were arguing about the ethics of death penalty which, based on the entire discussion, seems to have been the main topic at hand. So, that would make crime or poverty unrelated matters, not to the concept of death penalty itself which was made with the purpose of supressing crime, but to whether death penalty is an ethical practise or not. In fact, your arguments were lacking in that department and really mostly focused on the costs of death penalty. Senioritas (talk) 17:03, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Why do the ethics matter at all? We don't govern based on ethics and morals, we govern based off of what's effective. And also petty political agendas. 17:10, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * If the death penalty was very effective at deterrence, would you advocate it. If the costs were less than life without parole? Even if legal processes were ironed out? I'd still say no. Would you? Working for CTS decon is an absolute necessity. The death penalty is not. And even if legal processes were perfect it'll continue disproportionately executing poor, minorities, and mentally disabled people unless you also start factoring in the fantasy of everyone having an amazing lawyer, juries knowing if the punishment fits the crime and judging unanimously about mental health and dire poverty and desperation that too often factors into judgement. And then there's the grisly aspect of it that can be perfectly avoided. The lethal injection bed, that room, that gives me the utter creeps. A prison? It could be made nicer. But there's nothing redeemable about that room so I think we ought to give the death penalty a lethal injection. So, ethical argument is valid, even if overlooking effectiveness but it doesn't get anyone anywhere to also talk down on people, berate their ignorance, with your "most of you" remark that's not helpful either. 14:39, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Would I support it? No. Would I take the case for it more seriously? Yes. I'm neither blind nor stupid, and am well aware of the effects of the system we live under. As for why I'm dismissive of ethical and moral arguments, it's because most people's ethics are half-formed and post-hoc. Their morals inconsistent and subjective. These are not compelling forms of argumentation when we actually sit down and dissect them. 14:49, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * People are emotional creatures however. Appeal to emotion is not a great argumentation style but sparingly using the emotional and moralistic arguments do actually make a more convincing persuading case, probably even more so with the general public than us nerds here. Again, people do sometimes overlook what language they're using. Calling capital punishment "state-sanctioned murder" is just words akin to a pro-abortion person saying the opposition is "anti-choice": useless labeling. Sure, focusing on if the state should have this power to kill people is interesting abstract but I always sense this argument is too detached from the issue and is hardly persuasive on its own. 15:16, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Ethical argumentation, when done properly, has its merits. Moralism does not. Do you think people who support the death penalty lack morals? Nay, it is precisely because they are driven by their morals that they support such a thing. Therefor to argue against them you must look beyond morals, beyond good and evil, for languishing in moralism is the root of the problem. 15:41, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

A reason to specifically spare the very worst people on Earth
The part of the above which is pro-death penalty centrally includes the idea that it should be reserved for the "worst". Actually, I've read of a very interesting argument against executing the "worst", in the form of what clinical psychologist Andrew Lobaczewski had to say about the Nuremberg trials. A great opportunity for further scientific study into the causes of inhumanity was lost when convicts were executed. Had they been kept in prison instead, they could have been fruitfully further interviewed and examined for decades to come. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 17:13, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I mean it further optimizes the system to enforce the rule of law as consistently and effectively as possible so it sounds good to me. 17:19, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Two flaws with that argument are that the prisoner might escape (less true today in countries with SuperMax-type prisons), and the prisoner might be pardoned by a malevolent head of state. We saw the latter type of behavior with tRump forcing the former government of Afghanistan to release 5000 prisoners as part of negotiations with the Taliban despite consistently bad-faith negotiations on the part of the Taliban. Bongolian (talk) 17:40, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Another issue is that you're assuming that fruitful information can be gleaned from such people, who tend to be sociopathic — likely to be either uncooperative or highly manipulative of their interviewers. Bongolian (talk) 17:53, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * If we're talking people like the Nuremberg defendants, then that evaluation is incorrect. The majority of them did not suffer from any mental illness or disorder. 17:59, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Even for those with severely disordered personalities, it's also important to keep in mind that understanding of such people and how they influence others comes in significant part from studying them with a critical mind. To avoid future authoritarian nightmares, there's the need to understand both the top influencers and those most susceptible to their influence. Generally, there can be much to be learned from those who do the worst things concerning how to better immunize society against what may lead it towards large-scale inhumanity so that "never again" can become a reality. And concerning smaller-scale inhumanity, sometimes there's also much that could be learned, which could potentially lead to change for the better. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 19:02, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Without comment on the death penalty as such, to use an obvious example; I'm not clear on how the long life of Charles Manson in prison benefitted society as a whole. Just because there's a theoretical benefit doesn't mean it's going to work that way when you have someone like that incarcerated. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 19:35, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I still don't see the point in offing people. It costs too much and is a pain in the ass to make sure it's done with minimal hiccups. It doesn't deter crime, it doesn't save money, it doesn't even make families of victims feel better. It fails at every goal it's supposed to reach. Why the everloving fuck are you people so dead set on keeping such a useless waste of resources? 19:56, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Over the years, I've actually gone from a weak support to a moderate oppose, I think mainly due to the work of the Innocence Project. Bongolian (talk) 20:49, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Transchicken's confusing arguments
Here is what transchicken said: I support the state killing of serial killers because they serve no purpose to society and will go killing random people on the streets. I hope once the zodiac killer gets captured he immediately gets sentenced to death, that's all he deserves. Yikes. In the first sentence it seems like a rational justification of the death penalty (a terrible one with multiple problems), but the second one is retributive. So what is it...they should die because they are useless or because they deserve it? Also, transchicken has brought up the cost arguments (it actually costs more to murder citizens). But I find it interesting that people who are of no use to society can be murdered. Should the severely disabled with no family or friends be murdered? And the: if we let them out [I somehow know without providing evidence] that they will murder us again. So murdering people to protect ourselves from some "potential but unverifiable crime" is reasonable? But if we never let them out then that in theory wouldn't happen. Transchicken has also made a strange argument, on top of the idea that it is moral to dispose of useless people and dispose of people who may murder again, that it is immoral to lock someone up in a cell for the rest of their lives. But if transchicken was worried about the humane treatment about individual humans than I don't understand how transchicken can state that "all a particular human deserves is death". I would think all humans deserve plenty of things and universally, if we are to also consider cruel conditions like being in a cage for life. Transchicken, I don't believe for a second you have worked out what your position on this subject is, at least enough to make a cogent argument worth defending. You seem to easily dismiss people's stronger arguments with pretty terrible criticisms, but your response is the worst argument made on this thread (even worse than Andrew's, which can be easily poked with holes). Your argument is a mix of emotional outrage, the need for revenge and hurting criminals, dehumanising serious criminals, a strange metric for measuring suffering while discounting an agents own wishes over their lives, a person's utility to society, a conviction that some cannot be rehabilitated (without evidence), a strange cost/punishment analysis and some more erratic ad hoc arguments. What a mess. Shabi DOO  21:00, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It's the gut level "we have to punish the Bad Guys" mentality that's so ingrained in our culture. Honestly, by this standard we ought to just kill off every head of state, since pretty much all of them have committed worse crimes than most mass murders. 21:07, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Except then, no one would be able to control society and everyone would be thrown to anarchy.Andrew5 (talk) 22:09, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you mean "except then society would cease to function in a coherent manner and thus descend into chaos"? 22:13, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * They are useless and they deserve it, there I explained the whole schtick in one sentence. And for the love of goat, stop conflating people who are disabled with serial killers, dictators and drug cartel leaders. You very clearly understood my argument and yet decided to go with 'Oh no, he said useless assholes should be finished, but because he used the word "useless" he must have meant those who can't contribute due to a debilitating physical/mental illness', you're heavily implying I'm ableist when I very clearly meant criminals who are going to be criminals all their lives. You might also want to read what Bongolian and CorruptUser wrote on the subject. 22:39, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * "I very clearly meant criminals who are going to be criminals all their lives." Wow, how does it feel to have psychic powers? 22:45, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah yes because you could reform Adolf Hitler, Osama Bin Laden and the guy who invented the worst antivirus on Earth: McAfee security, if they were still alive today. Hell, you probably could reform the biggest serial killers who killed hundreds of people if you tried, or maybe you would die trying. We can't even convince greedy dirtbags like Jeff Bezos from showing some charity, so I doubt it is possible for the Sociopaths and Psychopaths to be convinced not to kill. 22:57, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * See, this kind of shit is what I mean by childish gut moralism. I really don't care if they can't be reformed, since the death penalty doesn't achieve any of the desired goals. Ergo it is a waste of time and resources. Ergo we shouldn't use it. Further, how the everloving fuck does killing someone punish them? How? once they're dead they understand jack fucking shit, since at that point they're just meat. If you want to make the deterrence argument, that one fails, since it's been empirically proven not to work. Quality of life for inmates? That can be improved if that's the route you want to go. Like, you might as well support torturing them at this point, since that's equally as effective, if less PR friendly. 23:54, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay. So stuck in a position that transchicken can't really get out of (yet still protesting that what they really meant should have been obvious) transchicken drops a few of the claims/arguments. So now we have slightly more information and a less confusing statement from transchicken. 1. Because they deserve it and 2. I doubt they can ever be reformed. Somehow, the combination of those two things = moral murder by the state. First we can show statement number 1 for what it really is: "because I said so". Because transchicken has provided no explanation as per why the punishment is deserved for what specific crime and severity of that crime but not others. The second one can be read for what it really is: we can base laws on what I believe yet I don't have sufficient knowledge to make a confident claim on. So basically now: Because I said so + claim I feel confident about but not sure of = moral murder by the state. That is a very interesting way to devise punishment. To be honest...I can take those arguments and provide any other conclusion and it would be just as reasonable. "I think people who single-handedly steal large objects deserve a bad punishment (because I say so), I am fairly certain but not entirely certain master criminals will not be able to single-handedly rob large objects without their hands. Therefore chopping off both their hands would be a moral act by the state. VOILA! Solid argument...solid reasoning. Shabi  DOO  00:07, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Honestly you could use these same methods of argumentation to defend torture. "the bad people are bad, bad people deserve what they get, therefore they deserve to be tortured, therefore wee should torture them". Weird how people aren't supporting that position for some reason... 00:16, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * What has torture or amputation ever achieved? Nothing. The death penalty reduces the costs of imprisonment and removes dangerous unreformable criminals from society permanently, and it's the third time exactly I said that, only reiterated differently. The only issue is that it was implemented so poorly that costs way more than it should. I will add that also life in prison is not perfect since the same criminal could always make their escape as Bongolian said, and as I said earlier is just murder by slow death in captivity. Every single argument used against death penalty could also be used against permanent imprisonment. 10:19, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I see so now we have reduced the death penalty to the utility of human being disposal (because Transchicken believes some humans can never be rehabilitated because they say so). A strong and convincing argument transchicken. As per the "Every single argument used against death penalty could also be used against permanent imprisonment", no, not every single one is applicable to life in prison but many are. Indeed, life without any possible chance of parole is a cruel punishment which is why every single prisoner, no matter their crime, should eventually be applicable for parole, which is what happens in many countries. That doesn't mean all of them get out. Those with severe mental issues usually also face treatment rather than or at least concurrently with punishment. But then, it is all the more emotionally satisfying to dispose of a human being out of revenge lust, dehumanisation and because we feel like it. Shabi  DOO  10:28, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Why not torture though? The "wicked" would be "punished", much more efficiently than if you just killed them outright. The reasons that the death penalty costs so much have already been laid out. Appeals, execution, and trial. The last time someone here made arguments against these they ended up advocating for the abolition of miranda rights. It's much more cost effective to do away with execution entirely. As for what incarceration is like... This, as I've said before, can be improved with but a moderate investment. It seems to me, from where I sit, that you just want to kill people. 10:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * TC's still yapping i see, defending (poorly) the indefensible. good for them. stand up for what you believe in, even if it is murder. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:03, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd call it "karma" in regard to serial killers and terrorists. 12:11, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * In regards to terrorists? Like say the Guildford 4 or the Maguire 7 or the Birmingham 6? Should they have been executed by the state after being "found" guilty? This'll be a fun response to watch out for. Cardinal Chang (talk) 13:39, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Due process. 13:45, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * there was "due process", there were court cases and testimony. They were found guilty by jury. They were proven to be innocent 20 years later. But under your "karma" for terrorists bollox, they would have been killed by the state for simply being of a different nationality and played cards. Or to put it simply, you're a muppet who likes to fill these pages with utter nonsense to cause outrage. Cardinal Chang (talk) 14:23, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Ehhh but wait Transchicken. You seem to infer that we can make executions less expensive than life long imprisonment (which it currently is not) by making it more efficient. But doing so will affect due process. So is due process important or not? Or is it less important when trying to save money? Or is it just bendable when you want to make humans disposable because you don't believe they can be rehabilitated? Shabi  DOO  13:50, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * An appeal to superstition? How disappointing. Your anti-intellectualism is starting to bore me. 12:13, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It is funny because people use the same justification for executing people for crimes we find not worthy. Executing drug dealers in Malaysia. Executing homosexuals for having sex in Iran. Executing people for saying things the government doesn't like in North Korea. Are those also Karma, or only when they murder and you personally believe they cannot be rehabilitated? Shabi  DOO  12:20, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

It's among the more interesting things about this site that consistently the most interactions come from discussing capital punishment, from one viewpoint or another.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 16:43, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

How about we just jab ´em with concentrated gympie-gympie juice. Hurts worse than death, but less permanent. 170.158.82.103 (talk) 17:51, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Regional cultures I find interesting
Eastern European cultures especially Balkan, Greek, Baltic and general Slavic cultures. South African culture in general and Middle Eastern culture such as Hebrew and Palestinian.

Don't know why I find these cultures so interesting. Any possible explanations? --Get Vaccinated (talk) 00:47, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The native American civilizations and proto-civilizations interest me, as do Afro-Caribbean cultures, Polynesia, and the Proto-Indo-Europeans. I see very little appealing in the Middle East, and I don't know enough about Eastern Europe or South Africa to comment there.  You can see some of this at work in my most developed fictional setting, originally made for the City of Heroes superhero MMO. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 01:50, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * As an adept of East Asian Studies, I would like to know your opinion on said cultures. Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 02:17, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm partial to the Ainu people and the minority groups of Burma, especially the Karen. For the Ainu I even got myself a mukkuri, it basically sounds like a Jew's harp but has a unique method of playing; traditionally more of a woman's instrument, but music is music to me and it only took about a night to figure out. And, if for dress, I could look at pictures of the Yi people for days; the men and especially the women have absolutely stunning headgear. They have a decidedly less than glorious history in many ways, with a traditional caste system that involved outright slavery, but sometimes I wish we could all dress in their traditional style. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 02:55, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I tend to find SE Asia, Thailand, Burma, Indonesia, Vietnam, etc. the most interesting parts of East Asia. The influence of India on the architecture, arts, polities, and major empires like Srivijaya is something I find attractive, and many of my favorite semi-alphabets including Burmese, Thai, and Javanese arose there.  The Korean Hangul alphabet strikes me as a work of genius, even if it isn't completely homegrown.  The creators had the example of Siddham and other scripts spread with Buddhism before them; they made something that still worked like those, but did not look out of place besides the Sinograms they were also using.  It shames me that I know very little Chinese or Japanese characters, even as it shames me more that I cannot read the Arabic script, especially since I can read Devanagari, Thai, and Burmese at least as far as recognizing the letters. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 04:06, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Would you know much about China and Japan in general? They are considered to be the second most significant international relationship on Earth, especially due to China's growing wealth and power. Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 05:41, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Most of the Chinese history I have read is older history - the Warring States period, but really, anything before 1900 or thereabouts. Always admired Tokugawa Ieyasu, who saw what the Spanish were doing in the Philippines and decided he didn't want any of that in his backyard. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 15:09, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Sima Qian certainly makes for some interesting reading, I read Burton Watson's translation. And of all the early philosophical treatises, the Zhuangzi and the Mingjia (the School of Names) always fascinated me; the Zhuangzi especially is something I can get lost in. Though it's after the time frame you mentioned, I can never read enough about Soong May-ling; helps that her best friend's nephew saved a ton of English-language correspondence and donated it to a library 20 minutes away from me. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 15:15, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * A few years ago I started reading the Confucian classics, mostly for the political and social philosophy. Their emphasis on customary duties, stable relationships, and fixed mutual obligations seemed to me to form the basis of a critique of ultracapitalism that does not rest an unrealistic ideal of egalitarianism.  There always will be differences in skill, talent, wealth, and power; how do we make a humane society given those inevitable inequalities?  And what people need now is stability; they need to know that the jobs they have mastered will not be snatched away from them by some bozo with a smartphone app.  Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 01:04, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Although Mengzi (Mencius) became by far the most cited Confucian, and Xunzi was really only revived in recent history, the basic debate was essentially the same as Rosseau and Hobbes (but far more engaging writing styles); Xunzi was right, Mengzi was wrong. Xunzi is often misunderstood to be saying that humans are bad out of desire, but he was very clear arguing that most humans generally want to be good people and just need help getting there. He was dead set against throwing everyone to the wolves and assuming it'll all work out best for everyone, so at least one of his people got it right; although, on a personal level, I thought he got way carried away about rituals and such, Mozi and Zhuangzi are more my style since grandiose rituals don't actually do anything concrete to change what you're doing them in the name of. And while the Daodejing is fun to read, the actual content is basically a standard libertarian treatise. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 03:43, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Northern Scotland, particularly the cultures, language and history of the islands is fascinating to me. I find it quite ironic that the Scots language (not Scots English or Scots Gaelic, but Scots) is closer to the language of the Angles than contemporary English is. Suck on that Nigel Farage, you mahogany skinned man-frog. Cardinal Chang (talk) 11:34, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

I also find Afrikaner culture somewhat interesting (no interest in the nutcase extreme nationalists). --Get Vaccinated (talk) 23:48, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

booster shot
got a txt message offering it, so getting my booster jab later today. yay me, maybe? still dont think i should be in the at risk/vulnerable group, but c'est la vie AMassiveGay (talk) 11:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Go for it. The wife is in line for one too, due to her immune system being compromised. Her father was informed that the booster shot for his age group (80+) will be dispensed with the flu shot. He wants the flu shot but not the booster, for christ knows what reason. (least it's only the booster he's turned down, he has had the double pfizer earlier in the year.) Cardinal Chang (talk) 11:30, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * just back from my jab. no pain. no issues at all. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:38, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * balls the size of watermelon though.


 * not really AMassiveGay (talk) 15:44, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

update
neck felt a little swollen last night and injection site was quite sore last night and this morning. felt like it was really bruised. it seems to be fine now. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:22, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That neck swelling is where your second head will grow. 20:08, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * i hope they are good looking, then we can kiss AMassiveGay (talk) 23:12, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

blue or green
just opened a packet of crisps thinking it was salt and vinegar, but to my horror it was cheese and onion. the packet was blue. thats salt and vinegar, thats the law goddammit. my flat mate insists its green for salt and vinegar blue for cheese and onion. i say it IS blue for salt and vinegar and i will kill any man who says otherwise. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:53, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Least it wasn't prawn cocktail Cardinal Chang (talk) 12:16, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * thats because thats pink AMassiveGay (talk) 12:18, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a disgraceful outrage. You should look deep down for the Karen inside you and call customer service and rant and scream at them, then go to a tube station and get someone to film you creating a ruckus until you get into a full out brawl with all the haters who don't take your issue seriously. I personally think salt and vinegar crisps are foul and that cheese and onion crisps are rank (prawn cocktail is just a made up flavour because no one would willingly want to eat those), but I don't have the urge to murder anyone who disagrees, but I respect your position. Shabi  DOO  12:20, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * its apparently a walkers thing. fucking monsters. boycotting them now. means no more monster munch or wotsits, but with gods strength, i will prevail against the tyranny of big crispsAMassiveGay (talk) 12:36, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * thank jesus for pringles. they got the colours right AMassiveGay (talk) 12:39, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * i might have too much time on my hands AMassiveGay (talk) 12:40, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You can always just buy the most expensive crisps. St. Eriks, work out to about £8 per crisp. I don't think you'll have package colouring issues.  Shabi  DOO  13:38, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The fuck? WHO MAKES CHEESE AND ONION CHIP BAGS BLUE!??!!?!? 13:40, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Fucking Gary Linekar's favorites, Walkers Crisps bastards, don't they know Cheese and Onion crisps are meant to be RED Cardinal Chang (talk) 13:47, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * blasphemy. red is ready salted. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:51, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a crime against god and nature. Everyone knows cheese and onion is light green. It's a universal constant. 13:54, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * you haven't tried King crisps then, fucking glorious. something from beyond dark matter flowing out onto a tape. Droool Cardinal Chang (talk) 13:55, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Be careful of green packs of crisps if you ever come to Taiwan. They're usually seaweed flavour. I picked up a tube of dark green Pringles at he supermarket once, thinking they were imported cheese and onion, like I'd had a few days earlier. When I got to the check out, I saw what they really were and had to tell the guy behind the counter I didn't want the fuckers. Spud (talk) 13:45, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Everyone knows this. Light green is cheese and onion. This is a law of physics godsdamnit!! 13:47, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I've recently seen people doing the same flavors with almonds (salt and vinegar almonds are awesome!), and even they know the rules. Who the fuck doesn't make the salt and vinegar light blue? The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 14:05, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Walkers don't, bastards Cardinal Chang (talk) 14:16, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Aussies don't either, salt and vinegar is down with the PINK. The United States largely sticks with a generally light blue, but if you are Wise, you go for the PURPLE.
 * Also, in the States, the biggest manufacturers reserve green for sour cream and onion. Cheese and onion is typically yellow.
 * In the end, though, what probably matters more here is that the top ingredient in your Lay's salt and vinegar chip seasoning is fuckin' maltodextrin made from corn and "natural flavor". So... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 15:47, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * i tend not to expect the finest organic ingredients in a packet of crisps. the 'flavour' is more a general idea than suggestive of actual ingredients. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:59, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Green also is jalapeno in the US. I honestly cannot think of a name brand chip(crisp) company that uses blue for anything other that S&V besides Doritos, and everyone knows that blue.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 17:59, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * And then there are the colours of milk tops (full, semi-skimmed and 'watery') Anna Livia (talk) 18:18, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Wife and I don’t ever buy chips/crisps and this thread has my mouth watering for some SV. I see that no one thinks barbecue chips are worthy of discussion. I posit that the black bagged Lays ones are trash only worth putting in a different kind of black bag; any variety of kettle cooked is fair game. Probliknaut (talk) 18:40, 22 September 2021 (UTC) would recommend trying blue in green. Cheese and onion in salt and vinegar; the blue in something new. We know that when we mix blue and green, we get yellow—a happy resolution. Leucippus Sapere aude 19:20, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Shame on you for turning up your nose at seaweed flavor, Spud. I'd do anything for a good roasted laver. Do the whites actually look at seaweed with disgust like mentioned here?? That's honestly shocking for me. What is wrong with the whites? 19:26, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Sushi has been trendy in the US (including "the whites") for a long time. Perhaps people don't realize that the typical roll wrapper is dried seaweed. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 19:44, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * laver bread is a welsh 'delicacy'. dunno if anyone eats though, it looks minging AMassiveGay (talk) 20:27, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I use the seaweed flavor for the base stock in miso soup. The other kind is made of bonito flakes and anything with fish results in an instant barf for me.  Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 02:33, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * GREEN YOU STUPID COLOR BLIND TWAT! :) Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 22:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)


 * At least two brands in scotland have blue as sea salt or lighly salted. If you ask a Scottish person what the best way to do things are, it is usually the Scottish way. End of argument! Problem resolved. Shabi  DOO  16:10, 23 September 2021 (UTC)


 * That's not SALT AND VINEGAR ya daft Scots git! :) Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 22:05, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Question for RationalWikians who are of African heritage who also have a mental disability (By African, I mean in any country)
Is saying the R-word towards a disabled person equal to saying the N-word to a person who is African? I am not trying to sound stupid here. I only know what it is like to be discriminated against for having a mental disability and not skin color. I asked because I watched a video of a woman claiming to have PTSD (white person) saying to a business owner (black person) claiming that the restaurant requiring masks is discrimination yet at the same time using the R-word. For someone claiming a mental disability, why use the R-word as an insult? --Get Vaccinated (talk) 23:20, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Not either, but the n-word is definitely worse. You won't get punched in the face for saying "retard". 00:21, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * If r/wallstreetbets used the n-word instead of the r-word, things would've been a lot different. LongStylus (talk) 03:04, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The r-word has legitimate non-pejorative uses, such as 'to retard the growth of a plant with an herbicide'. That in itself makes the word less taboo but still offensive when used in reference to people. There are no legitimate non-offensive uses of the n-word by non-African Americans except in an academic-type context referencing other people's usage (e.g., Dick Gregory's autobiographies). Bongolian (talk) 03:30, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I miss retard. Yes, it was a pejorative and ableist moniker thrown around by unenlightened mouth-breathers who could more aptly ascribe it to themselves, but it was part of the fraternal language on my ship, and the fact that I rode the short bus and am autistic surely grandfather's in some privilege to describe myself as socially retarded? It's always kind of funny using that term with a new therapist: they'll try to correct me, if it's not going well I'll remind them of the definition, and we move on amidst my self-inflicted triumph. We're supposed to be letting it die, yeah? I can't help but feel that it will simply be replaced, and would rather have the devil I know than some new term that'll soar right over my [redacted] head. Artificius (talk) 08:01, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I remember when I was in strong fraternal environments like on a hockey team or in the boy-scouts or at an all boys residence, I thought it was having a blast and part of a caring environment. Having experienced multiple other ones, I have reflected on them and I ask myself: is it such a caring environment when so many people spend so much time insulting one another? Even if it is "just razzing"? I have known other fraternal environments where people both have fun and joke around without putting one another down so frequently (including the use of harmful terms like: fag, retard, chink, etc). Do you really miss that much calling other people retard? Is that something you wish you could go back to and do? Shabi  DOO  16:17, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I always found Wesley Willis strangely entertaining, particularly that song, especially since I've both ridden in and driven the short bus. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 13:45, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I find people who excessively complain about the r-word to be sofa king we... Although I will admit that it's not too difficult to replace calling someone "retarded" with asking if they have a brain tumor or other serious brain injury.  14:06, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * We are hesitant about not using the word retard because people have been less vocal about it and have challenged people less about it than the n word or faggot etc. After being sufficiently challenged and facing the reasoning behind it (or for some just going along with it per fear of repercussions), people stopped using n-word and faggot as much (at least openly). The same thing is slowly happening with the word retard. I understand how the term is harmful and I have stopped using it myself and I have tried to come up with ways to express frustration with irrational people without resorting to the most harmful terms. It takes VERY LITTLE effort to change your habits. It takes even less effort to brush off why people challenge you over using harmful terms, stick with the same ole way of doing things and not making a micro-donation to making the lives of other people minisculely easier. Shabi  DOO  16:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

The reason that it's OK for African Americans to use the n-word, and for people with mental disabilities to use the r-word, and for LGBT people to use the f-word is historical. This was part of in-group toughening process: the world is much harsher outside the community than inside so you better toughen up. Among African Americans, it was known as The and there has been a similar ritual among drag queens. had quite a career given his unique take on music, There's a documentary about him that is now on YouTube. "Rock over London, rock on, Chicago." Bongolian (talk) 18:12, 23 September 2021 (UTC)


 * No. Not unless the black person is also retarded. UncleKrampus (talk) 21:16, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I asked as the r-word is the biggest insult in the community of people with a mental handicap. --Get Vaccinated (talk) 22:19, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Depends on who you ask. Some of my clients refuse to use anything else, on the grounds that's their diagnosis and that "intellectual disability" is a gigantic mouthful that's a lot harder to say and (in some cases, think Down syndrome type patients) physically harder to get out. None of them ever go by "intellectually disabled", if asked they usually just say their diagnosis and figure people can infer the rest from there. A lot of them cite The Ringer as their favorite movie, and I must say it gives a pretty accurate picture of what it's like working with these guys. In my experience, it's much more often the families of these people who object to it; some don't, especially families of older clients because that was just the neutral term, but some really get touchy about it. Almost all of the latter would rank nigger above retard (at least if someone like me said it, when these guys say it to each other it's easy enough to brush off), but would be very upset with either. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 00:10, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

All of us are falling, and Texas will collide first.
When will this entire thing be brought down, and how will it happen? Things are going to get worse due to climate change, but it won't be enough to put a stop to the continual cycle of decay. It looks around wondering what to do, but it does nothing. Isn't that disgusting? Revenant Raven (Scream at nothing, fool.) 00:38, 24 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I remember, years ago while driving through the southeast US, I used to see a humorous sign in bars and restaurants. This was back during the old Soviet days before the nuclear detante when the immanence of certain destruction was always present. The sign read: Instructions: In case of Nuclear Attack. 1) Keep Calm. 2) pay bill. 3) Run like hell.
 * Ever since that time I have believed the things that should most concern me could be found immediately at hand. UncleKrampus (talk) 02:01, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I feel like RR’s post is a haiku or something. I don’t know. Reading the news each day is important and maddening. The world is constantly crumbling but it always has been. Do you ignore the news (or worse, keep up with celebrity news) and plod through life blissfully unaware, or stay mindful of the everflowing shit and the fan? I don’t have anything beneficial to offer but there you go. It’s falling and has always been falling, going to take an enormous force to lift it back up and I don’t think mankind can offer that force. Probliknaut (talk) 04:26, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It wasn't meant to be a poem, but it was more just reflecting my thoughts at the moment. And it was more an examination of the United States and watching its slide towards barbarism. The democrats are doing very little to actually combat the damages being done by republicans, and I just think that those damages have built up to a terrible extent. If I do make a new poem (not that this is one), I will send it out to the saloon. Revenant Raven (talk) 19:27, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * If one or more of the civilizations on this planet collapse, they'll be replaced in time with new ones shaped to the nuked or reheated containers they find themselves in. Decay may be ever-present, but little acts of renewal abound even if from dubious sources, great and notable ones in the Spring. It may not be true to say we'll be fine, but we'll be around. I think we're going to leave. I think we're going to spread life to the solar system, and I think around the time we do we'll also be in the midst of expanding its kingdom to include our tools. In the meantime, there are politicians and corporations to hold accountable and little acts we can all perform to make the world a little better. Artificius (talk) 05:34, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * From a European perspective, I'm wondering about the future of the U.S. in particular, which seems to be in a position somewhere in-between that of more stable and secular countries of Western civilization and – except for it simply being Christian instead of Islamic – theocracies elsewhere in the world which may be in a sad state for many decades, perhaps some centuries, to come. A critical failure and collapse of the brittle and somewhat eroded democratic order there now is in the U.S. has been averted in the short term recently, but it's not obvious to me whether in the long term things will get better or worse with the U.S.
 * In the really long term, I think humanity can on the whole organize its life better (while smaller societies and their best and worst aspects come and go), perhaps improving how life is lived a second time on the order of what came about with science and technology and secularization in the last few centuries. However, I think there's a peak beyond which human nature doesn't support further change, and that genuinely positive utopian developments are simply incompatible with human DNA. Organic life which has evolved around eating and procreation and attempts to hoard resources has its limits, and can't really be expected to have or develop all that much sense. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 12:34, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

The fruits of my labor are nearing fruition
I am nearly done with my video "Annexed: An EAS Scenario". I will be pissing off Pro-Russian nutcases and right wing extremists. What is my YouTube channel without pissing off political extremists, pseudoscience promoters and racists. My channel is built upon those values. --Channel 48 EAS (talk) 19:54, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Self-puffing much? 20:56, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe I am. --Channel 48 EAS (talk) 21:01, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Meat eaters and pet owners stand in the way of reducing carbon emissions.
Stephen Colbert published a YouTube video called Aging Politicians And Meat Eaters Stand In The Way Of America's Climate Progress. Colbert talks about meat eating and pet ownership and carbon emissions.

Why isn't the lede of the RationalWiki's vegetarianism more positive? The current opening paragraph says: "While not woo in and of itself, vegetarianism has long been considered an eccentricity (or at the least non-normative, as vegetarians are a minority) and is closely associated with a number of forms of quackery. It is becoming increasingly associated with the environmentalist movement." Görlitzenberg (talk) 16:42, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * People having kids also stand in the way of reducing carbon emissions. What doesn't get mentioned is the massive resentment you get from a population that has been implicitly told for decades that there isn't enough to go around so they have to cut back on having kids and other lifestyle choices, they do so, then, well, immigration.
 * It's not just a European thing. In China, almost every province allowed minorities to have an additional child under the one child policy.  The average Han Chinese citizen was obviously not thrilled, and this animosity towards minorities is part of why the Uighur camps are able to be built with little internal backlash.  17:18, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * There is a lot of resentment about Covid-19 vaccine mandates. But they are still being enacted. I am glad vaccine mandates are being enacted because they logically make sense and they are based on sound medical evidence. Emotion should not trump facts and sound public policy. Görlitzenberg (talk) 17:26, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The resentment over the mandates would be a lot less if it wasn't so obvious that the upper-crust of society was ignoring the rules entirely, as always. That Met Gala a week or two ago?  The celebrities got to wear all the glitzy gowns, but the staff had to mask up.  It's almost as if the rich and famous are outright telling the working classes to not ruin the party by showing their faces.  The rich and famous still managed to get their nails done or their hair cut.  They still managed to have parties, go to private beaches, and so forth.  They were so used to ignoring the rules that it really shouldn't come as a surprise that the most famous cases of COVID in the US were of celebrities such as Tom Hanks.  18:20, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The reported Met Gala mask policies were in my opinion sensible -- proof of vaccination required, no mask required for outdoors, masks required for indoors. There's been some shit rules flaunting by certain rich and famous people, but I'm not sure that's the greatest example to make a classist argument. Most of the photos taken were on the "red carpet" outside when guests were arriving from what I understand, so we didn't see what went on indoors. At any rate, "but the rich!" is a lousy excuse to ignore health measures during a pandemic, viruses frankly don't give a shit about what your income level is. Herman Cain was a bigwig pizza mogul, flouted mask mandates, and attended Trump rallies filled with lots of people flouting the rules. He now is dead. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 18:34, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * If global warming is really a dire problem, then public policy should dictate a no pet mandate. And RationalWikians should have a much more positive vegetarianism article - especially the lede. And RationalWikians should be vegetarians. How prevalent is vegetarianism among RationalWikians? Görlitzenberg (talk) 18:47, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not a very problematic statement, as there is a fair bit of woo and quackery at the far ends of the spectrum (notably in the radical vegan side and pure junk like raw foodism). That Steven Colbert video was quite humorous and actually contained a potential solution for the pet problem. You should watch the video links you post before you start trolling the Salon. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 19:01, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I get that that you're a vegan and all, but have you considered that it might not be the fault of society? That is to say, the meat industry is massive, profitable, and exerts a significant amount of political clout. Have you perchance considered going after the meat makers, rather than the meat eaters? 18:44, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I am a pescatarian for health reasons primarily.


 * And I believe that many global warming advocates don't take the supposed problem that seriously. For example, my guess is that a lot of RationalWikians are meat eaters and pet owners. Görlitzenberg (talk) 18:52, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Show me data to suggest your advised course of action would have a significant effect on Co2 emissions. Don't wag your finger, show me the fucking data that says going after the consumption end of the process rather than the production end is the smart play. 18:55, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * i have no pets and i had baked beans on toast for me dinner. put that in your holier than thou pipe and smoke it. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:00, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with Mr./Ms./Mrs. GC. We should give some heafty credit to the agribusinesses, the coal and oil companies, the plastic makers, in short the Super Wealthy before we condemn John Doe and Whiskers. An Advocate (talk) 19:09, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Have any RationalWikians mourned the loss of their pets at this wiki? Did anyone point out that there would be less carbon emissions because their pet died? Görlitzenberg (talk) 19:16, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you going to present data to support your position? I will fucking hound you until you cough up data to support the idea that the consumption end of things bares more moral and ethical responsibility than the production end. 19:25, 23 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Any argument against keeping livestock or eating meat has very little credibility. It comes in with two strikes against it because of the animal rights cult, which is basically the hipster version of the anti-abortion cult.  They are almost perfect mirror images, right down to attempted blockades and invasions of slaughterhouses, farms, and restaurants.  The world used to have many more large game animals than it used to, which is one reason why I find it hard to believe that cow farts have a lot to do with the climate issue.  Better to just stick to the big issue, the burning of fossil fuels, and leave agriculture out of it.  Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 19:23, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Agriculture, both plant and animal, is one of the top contributors to climate change. I'm sorry to piss on the moral stick up your ass as well. (not really to be honest.) 19:27, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * A lot of feed goes into producing a cow for slaughter. Vegetarianism is far more efficient in terms of food production.


 * Compared to pescetarian and vegetarian diets, emissions from meat consumption >100 g/day are about 50% higher. One study showed the GHG emission from mutton or beef to be 250 times higher than that of legumes. Emissions from vegetarian and vegan diets are mostly from cereals, vegetable-based foods and sweets.


 * Food production accounts for almost a quarter of human-related emissions, of which agriculture produces about 12% and livestock about 18%. Beef and dairy animals produce over 40% and 20% of livestock emissions respectively. Görlitzenberg (talk) 19:32, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * And what is the solution to this issue? Is there a way to sustainably eat meat? An Advocate (talk) 19:37, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Your numbers are off. Livestock and fertilizer account for around 5% of global emmission, with the majority being from the energy sector. Yeah, I'll piss on both of you for being factually wrong. Also, show citations on why we should focus efforts on meat consumption rather than optimizing overall food production. 19:39, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed there is! Cloned meat. By replacing our current meat production chains with cloned and imitation meat, we would optimize production while cutting emissions in that sector. This combined with overhauling our power grids could result in massive net savings in money and emissions. 19:42, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Go where the evidence leads. And develop enough cognitive flexibility and willpower to change your dietary habits. I am sensing some stubbornness and/or weak wills in some RationalWikians. And a less than stellar commitment to solving or mitigating so-called man-made global warming. Görlitzenberg (talk) 19:45, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Here we go again with the cultlike judgmentalism. AAR, the notion of the 'carbon footprint', and the resulting notion that we should invent new conspicuous austerities and alter our way of life to save the planet, because it's all on us and our consumption habits, was invented by the fossil fuel company BP in order to shift blame away from industry.  Changing your diet will have very little effect until the fossil fuel issue is dealt with first.  Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 19:47, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Not weak-will, but the knowledge of the grander picture. An Advocate (talk) 19:49, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you fucking illiterate? I just described overhauling a production and distribution sector, (two in fact), and spoke nary a word about personal guilt. I honestly don't give a fuck whether you feel guilty about eating meat, because that's not my fucking problem. As for the energy sector, well... we can walk and chew gum at the same time. I know, shocking. 19:52, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I banned Görlitzenberg for being a troll. Remember kids, always demand sources when someone starts spouting nonsense, it's the fastest way of separating the trolls from the morons. 20:01, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I actually saw IRL a Hummer with a prominent vegan bumper sticker, apparently some dudeski was suckered in by a since-retracted fallacious claim by Michael Pollan. Bongolian (talk) 20:04, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I’m astonished you people let this go on for so long. Now I’m off to eat a burger🍔.  20:06, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Most of the charts I see (such as this one by EWG and this one at OurWorldinData show red meat / grazers as the "biggest" food offender. I mean, if you want cost/benefit, that seems like a big target if you want to make a food choice to feel good about your contribution to the environment. Beyond that though, the data is kind of murky. Meat like poultry may contribute a little more carbon footprint than rice, but it seems like a minor quibble in the grand scheme of things. You may not like the poultry industry for other reasons, but the carbon impact case to me is weak. At any rate, probably this isn't even a problem if red meat was properly priced given their oversized carbon impact. A lot of the grazing animal carbon impact problem is deforestation, so some of the carbon impact problem possibly is solvable regardless of personal choice of meat consumption. And there are other ways to reduce the carbon impact of agriculture, such as reducing the huge amount of food waste that the planet currently generates, that also doesn't require abstention. And frankly, from a big picture perspective, agriculture isn't the worst offender carbon wise. Obviously, if humanity grew and ate nothing, there would be no carbon impact. But that isn't going to happen. So I don't get it anytime you see some of the food choice evangelism (this guy was trolling obviously, but you occasionally see that elsewhere). Seems like the wrong thing to focus on. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 20:08, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Not to mention the infeasibility of banning meat. I laugh at anyone who thinks that’s a serious policy proposal in the US or in most other places. 20:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Here's an article about Dogs vs SUVs. I don't like the numbers used, e.g., they assume only 6000 miles driven per year, and they assume that dogs eat the same meat as everyone else instead of, you know, the garbage that would get fed to pigs to make more meat.  However, a dog still eats food, and as I've said, if the dog didn't eat the scraps those scraps would be fed to pigs, so dogs do contribute to emissions.
 * As for cow farts, first off, there's far, far more animal mass as a result of intensive farming than would naturally exist. Second, farm animals emit a lot of methane because they are fed foods that contain a lot of raffinose, a tri-saccharide that is indigestible to mammals.  The foods they would eat in the wild have much less of this type of sugar, and would thus fart less.  20:15, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * As I said before, transitioning our meat industry towards cloned and imitation meat would, in conjunction with overhauling our energy sector, result in a massive decrease in emissions. It would also optimize production, lowering overhead, which could lead to cheaper food, fuel, and power. 20:18, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You didn't start carrying on about "stubbornness and/or weak wills" either, which is what I object to. I don't care what anyone else eats or refuses to eat, so long as they don't get evangelical about it or develop a messiah complex. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 20:21, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I agree... assuming by "cloned" you mean "vat grown". Another advantage is that the meat can be grown anywhere there's access to electricity and water, rather than needing to be in the space where cows live.  So you could have a vat-lab in the finger lakes feeding all of NYC without having to import beef all the way from Nebraska. 20:25, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see the issue about pet owners but regardless I still think people ought to limit their intake of meat whenever can and I'd even encourage meat free days of avoiding all sorts of meat. You can't avoid abuse in agriculture whether it be cruelty of eating meat (okay if you think the idea of mass prodcued dog meat is disturbing and revolting, eating most farm animals should also elicit the same reaction) or laborers in abhorrent conditions in meat packing (which is also repulsive but people often overlooked it, as Sinclair noted back when published The Jungle advocating for worker rights and dignities) or child labor being practiced (yes the agricultural industry uses child labor in the U.S.) but you can definitely not eat meat. It's probably harder to do this if you're in a food desert, but if you can do a weekly trip of groceries, you'll see the meat frequently takes up the most of your budget anyway. 20:30, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I always disliked the term "food desert", though at least it isn't as Orwellian as "food justice" or "food racism". Food deserts exist because 1) the locals are less likely to cook/prepare meals and thus prefer prepackaged foods, which in fairness is to be expected if you have lots of single moms working two jobs to feed their kids, as opposed to a your stereotypical 50's housewives cooking for the whole family, and 2) with a business that already has razor-thin margins, the higher crime rates prevent businesses from moving into a neighborhood.  Those protests last summer?  They led to massive increases in the number/size of food deserts.  20:40, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I do not see why the onus should be on the consumers instead of the producers. The electronic device you're using to type these posts? Child slaver, child labor, strike breaking, union busting, Foxxcon. The clothes you're wearing? Child labor, child slavery, sweatshops, child slave labor sweatshops, union busting, right to work laws. All industries that use Amazon or similar companies as intermediaries: Union busting, right to work laws, employees being worked to death (literally), shorting pay, child labor (varies by region and company). As the saying goes, "there is no ethical consumption under capitalism". The solution? Going after the supply chains, aggressively. Counterproductive responses? Telling people that they are personally responsible for buying from a system they have little to no control over. Consumption follows production, after all. 20:52, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Those were the exact complaints that the Unions and other working class folks complained about back in the 80's and 90's when it came to shipping all of the jobs overseas, even if the complaints were a cover for protectionistism. 20:59, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Blech, protectionism. Honestly they should have pushed for Union expansion into those countries. Global labor unions and regional WSDEs are the future of the world economy, if our species doesn't wipe out all life on Earth first. 21:04, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Objecting to eating dog meat is extreme cultural chauvinism and racist as fuck. The principle objection I would have to cloned or artificial meat would relate to "intellectual property". Any 'meat' brewed up this way will be highly corporatized and zealously guarded; your local butcher will be out of the running. And it seems a Rube Goldberg contrivance to go through all that just so the poor widdle animals don't have to die. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 23:00, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Many countries have banned dog meat -- and for good reason. Andrew5 (talk) 23:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * What's the good reason?
 * Also I didn't mean that it's consumers fault for their choices. I did not argue that "we humans are collectively to blame". Supply chains are the primary promoters of all of what's bad in the world, but unlike clothes, electronic devices, etc. you can limit buying meat, which is also includes health benefits. It's the same reason you should probably turn off the faucet, turn off the lights, limit your sugar intake, get fuel efficient cars if you can comfortably afford the car, go for energy star appliances, boycott Chick-Fil-A/Activision-Blizzard, etc.. No one is saying it's your responsibility if you don't do this or that and you should feel bad if you don't, and it's not your fault for climate change, but do practice limiting and mitigating when you can, take personal steps. They're not going to resolve the giant sweeping issues but I mean, why not? I don't see the "there's no ethical consumption under capitalism" as an excuse to refuse to limit meat intake. Anyhow, in the end, you can push toward an overhaul sweeping reform all of these supply problems, as fantastically steep as that goal is, but aside from lab-grown meat, I don't see any way to reform killing animals for meat, it's always going to be incredibly ugly.
 * Veganism is right out for me. I need something called 'heparin' to stay alive; it's extracted from pigs.  I have chronic anemia and red meat is the best way to keep it from flaring up into acute, which will mean a trip to the hospital.  I've had so many blood transfusions that the circle of eligible donors is shrinking.  I don't have the luxury of caring about the lives of animals.  Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 01:25, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Cultural morality doesn't originate in laws. It tends to be the other way around. When humans settled in Europe about 43,000 years ago, dogs came with them. Together, over the next 30,000 years or so, they proceeded to wipe out every form of mega fauna from Mammoths to saber tooth tigers. The utility of dogs to hunter gatherers led to the emotional symbiosis and is possibly an evolutionary appendix. Yes, some cultures allow the eating of dogs, even in the west. Swiss farmers, mostly. UncleKrampus (talk) 01:46, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Human beings are often selfish. They often want the other guy to pay the price of public policies. So if there is such a thing as man-made global warming, it is the oil companies, car companies, etc. that have to carry the burden - not me. I can't help thinking that if people were required to change their long-held eating habits, give up pet ownership, live in small apartments instead of houses, use their computers less, etc. (which would be easy to do in many cases), then they would demand more proof from climatologists for man-made global warming. Middleman (talk) 05:34, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Dogs are predators. Everything accumulates as it goes up the food chain, making dogmeat an order of magnitude more likely to have diseases or parasites or anything else.
 * Then there's the whole "betrayal" thing of eating someone who fights alongside you in war. We can eat cows because at best they are slave-beasts who pull plows, though I can understand Indians viewing them as mother-beasts; agree to disagree and all.  Horses fight alongside us in war too, so those should never end up on the dinner plate (even though some people do, I know).  Cats, well, they're cats.  07:14, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * People have a tendency to rationalize away behavior or the behavior of their tribe/group that does not live up to their ideals. There are suburban owners of homes who are global warming activists that are not willing to downsize and live in small apartments. There are meat-eating ardent environmentalists are not willing to give up their meat. It's always the other guy or those outside one's group that have to make the sacrifices.


 * The extent that people are willing to make sacrifices for their beliefs can be a reflection on how much they truly believe them. Middleman (talk) 08:21, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Because we all know how's that going to end, I will just state that I'm vegetarian instead of starting another debate. 09:51, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * And why should they give up their meat? What does someone deciding to reject meat in their diet actually do? The multinational production lines will still run, the animals will still be reared, killed, butchered, and sold. To power, why should someone move into a tiny apartment? It'll still be powered by the coal or gas plant that the house was powered by, except that person's quality of living will have gone down. So, I ask you, why should we, the public, engage in such performance? Why not go after the production lines if you actually care that much? 11:00, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * We already eat other predators regularly. This is the first time I've seen the argument that dog meat harbors disease, there's no mention of how hazardous it is in the Wikipedia page for it. Also the talk about "betrayal" is just emotional appeal from your cultural view, while other cultures probably see that differently. It's a retread of the special "companion animal" pleading. What makes eating dog betrayal when we're constantly abusing trust of farm animals to eat them. You either must accept the reality of dog meat or must denounce meat eating of barnyard animals and probably other anomals too. Otherwise you can and will have double standards and will use weak post hoc rationalization for them. 14:56, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Climate change is either a dire problem as it is purported to be or it is not. If it's not a dire problem, then all other things being equal, people need not be concerned with changes to their personal lives that affect the climate.

As an aside, BMJ is an acronym for the British Medical Journal. "Add this to the long list of reasons to adopt a plant-based or pescatarian diet: New research has found that what you eat — and what you don’t — may lower your odds of developing moderate to severe COVID-19 infection. The study, which was published June 7 in the online journal BMJ Nutrition, Prevention & Health, is the first to report an association between dietary patterns and the severity of COVID-19... After analyzing the survey data, researchers found that respondents who followed a plant-based diet had a 73 percent lower risk of developing moderate to severe COVID-19; for those who followed a pescatarian diet, the risk was 59 percent lower. “We also found that those who followed low carbohydrate/high protein diets had greater odds of moderate to severe COVID-19 compared with those who followed a plant-based diet,” says Sara Seidelmann, MD, an internal medicine doctor at Stamford Health in Stamford, Connecticut, and a coauthor of the study."

No man is an island. People's diets do affect other people and affect the environment as well. A person's diet, which affects their natural immune system, can help insure there are more hospital beds available in their community. Middleman (talk) 11:20, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The diet of the average person is literally a grain of sand next to multi-billion dollar multinational industries. Literally less than a fraction of a percent Ken. I know you actually don't give a fuck, hence your concern trolling about supposed hypocrisy, but changing your personal lifestyle is actually the least effective thing you can do. I'm not just shooting my mouth off here, I have the data to back up my claims. Data you refuse to cough up when it's demanded of you. 11:36, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * According to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), the average American consumed around 144 pounds of meat in the year 2017. Over the course of 40 years in a person's life, that is 5,760 pounds of meat.


 * People's behavior does affect those around them. If a person's friends and family are smokers or overweight, they are more likely to be a smoker or overweight. Being around vegetarians who are family members and work colleagues probably had an influence on me only eating meat on holidays. Middleman (talk) 11:41, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I love how you didn't prove that meat consumption has a statistically relevant effect on emissions. Way to go, you tried to bait and switch but failed. 11:52, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know whether you're Ken coming back here for a round 2 or whatever, but you shouldn't argue with Grammar Commie, he's not worth your time. I am a vegetarian myself and I understand the benefits of it, but as long as we rely on meat (Because of production costs) you'll never find anyone outside of other vegans or vegetarians who would agree with you, and I don't care if you're serious or trolling, I'm saying that in general - nobody cares about veganism, let alone vegetarianism. 12:05, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I literally laid out a plan for dismantling the current meat industry model. Thrice. Implying that I don't actually care about this issue is extremely dishonest. 12:08, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Science Daily: Meeting climate targets may require reducing meat, dairy consumption.


 * The British science journal Nature: Eat less meat: UN climate-change report calls for change to human diet.


 * If one truly believes in man-made climate change, then they should not eat meat. Middleman (talk) 12:09, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * So... It's on the production end, not the consumption end. Both citations describe the production end, not the the consumption end. So literally what I've been saying. Your personal choices are minuscule compared to the massive industries that actually make the product. 12:14, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

New York Times, 2019: "Meat and dairy, particularly from cows, have an outsize impact, with livestock accounting for around 14.5 percent of the world's greenhouse gases."

I showed that a person's behavior affects those around them. And demand does affect supply. That is Economics 101. And a person does have 100% control over what they eat. Middleman (talk) 12:19, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Lol no. Supply creates demand. That's how modern consumerism works. You create a product and then manufacture a demand for that product. It's more efficient to go after the production line, after which people will either purchase the new products or or do without. As for emissions, over three quarters of emissions are caused by the energy sector, with around a quarter caused by power to industry alone. That plants powering factories, offices, etc. That means the majority of effort should be spent on overhauling the energy sector. You can't fucking pivot or bait and switch with this issue. I have the fucking data to back up my plan. 12:29, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not changing because others do much worse is a petty excuse. There is a difference between "why should I" vs. "must I?" Tiny changes make a difference in the aggregate and the government doesn't change policies or laws until there is a minimal momentum of change and demand for change. Not caring, not changing your habits and waiting for others to change is pure apathy. That doesn't mean you MUST do it. But the fact that tiny changes make a difference (even when others don't contribute to making a difference) a totally reasonable reason why you should. Different cultures have different attitudes to "why should I" for different things and all cultures are apathetic in some ways and not in others. Walk around some cities and they are filthy and littered with rubbish on the street. "Why should I not throw my trash on the street when the corporations are polluting the shit out of lakes and pristine areas"? Well...there are many good reasons why you should put your rubbish in a rubbish bin every time, even if that one single contribution to street trash is a drop in the ocean. You can BOTH live by example and advocate and be an activist for change happening by larger players.  Shabi  DOO  12:12, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a false analogy. We consume the products we're presented. We have little to no control over that production process. The littering analogy describes the act of production, not the act of consumption. Let me give a better analogy. Let's say the local ground water is polluted, but it's the only feasible source of water for miles. Should we focus exclusively on simply buying bottled water, or should we clean up the local water supply with those who can afford it buying bottled water? This analogy is much closer to the actual dilemma that the OP (Ken) presented. 12:46, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Like I said above, I imagine a lot of meat's climate impact issue (specifically grazing animals, because the rest aren't a big deal) is how they are produced, not necessarily the fact that they are produced at all. If you want to not eat meat for other reasons, that is fine, but the climate angle seems week. My initial suspicion is that the climate impact of even a "big offender" like cattle might be mitigated by, say, not razing down rainforests to raise them, not growing shit like soy to feed them, and actually raising them on environments that naturally support them, such as grasslands. Unfortunately I can't find good hard data to qualify if products like grass-fed cattle or plains-raised bison are indeed better (a Nature Conservatory blog post is supportive but doesn't count much due to being from an advocacy organization, and a Wapo article says "it's complicated" without involving any hard numbers). However, with transportation and electricity generation being over half the issue with greenhouse gases (at least in the US), even the relatively high impact of beef seems like a lower priority to me, so maybe there's no need to dive deeper at all. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 13:46, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * While it's true that meat production is proportionally small in terms of emissions, I think we should optimize it anyway. In that regard, I think cloned meat is the way to go based on the data I've seen as well as my knowledge of the actual production process, most of which would be eliminated by cloned meat production. This means meat could be produced much more easily, and more importantly for incentivizing companies, much more cheaply. Prohibition or abstinence is not the answer, overhauling production is. 14:32, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * To rephrase my question and address your point concerning controlled abstinence in regards to meat. Would you argue this same course of action for the electronics and clothing sectors? If not, why not? And why is arguing such extreme moral purity for meat consumption but not for other production sectors not hypocritical? 15:53, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I actually have railed against clothing in the past. The very idea that you need your entire wardrobe replaced every two years, if not every 6 months, is the most idiotic and wasteful thing we have ever had to put up with.
 * I get that we do need a way to create an honest signal to allow us to rank people's value as a longterm sexual partners in some manner, but we should look to something which doesn't contribute 10% of all global emissions nor plunge others into poverty. As a species, we need to re-define "sexy".  There still needs to be a way to show off that you can gather enough resources and have enough free time that you can have/do things that other, lesser humans can't, but I suggest that we use skills.  Instead of "expensive car", sexy should be "knows second language".  Instead of "overpriced clothes", sexy should be "can play a musical instrument".  Instead of "glorified clock on arm", sexy should be "can repair a computer".  Ultimately, skills prove to a potential mate that you are intelligent and healthy enough, with enough free time, to acquire said skills, thus making them an honest signal of reproductive fitness.  16:41, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * GrammarCommie, why are you arguing for moral impurity about global warming which scientists say could end all human life on earth? If the scientists' projections are right, one is either pure or impure about doing what is best about such a grave matter. There is no in-between. Lukewarm responses to grave dangers are not prudent. Azhar (talk) 16:47, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I await our resident troll to read the above statement on clothing and start advocating the nudist lifestyle. "Why are people of Rationalwiki wearing pants?" PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 16:50, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but you aren't going to demand everyone practice nudism until the clothing industry stops being shit. Which was my point. Also, I guess I have to put this out there, some forms of clothing and/or materials get people's rocks off, such as leather, rubber, and latex. Anyway, main point, Prohibition is silly and an overreaction that's only really advocated for with meat for some unfathomable reason... 17:14, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * @Pan What makes you so sure the people of Rationalwiki are wearing pants?
 * @GC Just so we're clear, I'm not advocating nudism or ratty clothes. I don't think you are suggesting I am, but, internet.
 * As for prohibition against other stuff, I think people are asking for stupid things like an end to plastic straws, which is doubly stupid considering that more damage is done from the contents of that 7/11 big gulp than the straw is. What we probably should be doing with plastic isn't recycling (too convoluted with some many different types), but converting it all into plastic-char to offset coal/gas.  It's not perfect as a longterm solution, but it's better than the current situation.  17:35, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

In any case where you have a set of reasonable options, all these options are reasonably affordable and choosing one or the other won't be a terrible burden (let us not get into a debate between what a terrible burden is at this point), then choosing the option that creates the least harm to the environment, or your community or whatever...is a praiseworthy action. If the argument is framed as "why should I when x doesn't" or "why should I when x does unpraiseworthy thing" or "why should I when the system is x", none of this is relevant to whether doing something is praiseworthy or not. Why should you? Because it is a less harmful choice. This is ENTIRELY different from "must I"? This is the difference between doing something praiseworthy and something being a moral obligation. So no, I am not saying someone MUST choose less polluting or buy less polluting or high carbon footprint products, be it technology, transportation or anything else. I am saying, those that make the argument "why should I when x does x" is an incredibly weak or even meaningless one. If in some cases, when you honestly don't have a reasonable option between using or purchasing two products or doing so is incredibly burdensome, then yeah, it might be a different story. But living in a less comfortable dwelling, or having a less roomy car or eating less meat are not terribly burdensome and those are not choices dependent on "production". I am not saying you MUST do something. Just be careful when framing your explanations for why you do it or why you avoid making decisions that are less harmful. Shabi DOO  10:26, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Shabi... The question I asked you, and Ken, is "why should we focus on the consumption end of the process rather than the production end?". This is not a whataboutism, this is not a pivot. Focusing on the consumption end, it seems to me, is engaging in counterproductive tactics as the deed is already done by that point, while focusing on the production end goes after the actual mechanical process that causes these problems, which is far more effective. Literally every fucking paper I've ever read on this subject, every article, every argument, describes the production of meat, even when it blames consumption. It's not about praise, it's not about what someone else is doing, it's about fucking literacy of the issue. 12:35, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Totally as an aside, there is a local pizza chain that put up signs announcing that they had gotten rid of plastic straws to save the planet. Their replacement?  Plastic sippy cup caps.  I wish I had known that destroying the world was that easy, it's a longtime ambition.  Also, if livestock emissions are that big a deal, job one is to bring the process indoors so it can be contained and dealt with. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 13:37, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no reason to focus on getting one sector to be responsible. Ideally, all sectors can be more thoughtful in the decisions they make, and if that requires more government regulation...then great. Companies rarely change their habits out of the goodness of their heart. So no it is not reasonable to expect individuals to take on any disproportionate burden. You did say for example, comime: "To power, why should someone move into a tiny apartment? It'll still be powered by the coal or gas plant that the house was powered by, except that person's quality of living will have gone down." Instead of framing it as "why should I"? Consider framing it as: "I won't be inconvenineced because excuse x, y and z." I am willing to admit I make dozens of choices every day that puts convenience over the environment and many other issues. We all do. But I am not going to blame my apathy on the fact that other players do worse or the system is rigged or because it is unreasonable to expect me to take on the burden. Most of us make little to no sacrafice to lighten any burden at all. Shabi  DOO  15:53, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I consider the incandescent phase-out one of the great success stories as far as shifting consumption goes to something more environmentally friendly. I remember roughly 10 years ago when the phase out began, there was a shit ton of uproar about incandescent bulbs. It seems like that hardly any one cares now -- granted, I'm sure you can find a hold out somewhere. But what helps is that LED bulbs in particular are almost in every aspect a superior product. The cost of the bulb has fallen down considerably. Even the piece of shit LED bulbs with the junk power supplies that will probably fail at some point tend to last longer than incandescent bulbs. They sip less electricity and for AC climates save on your AC bill too. The light quality is not quite incandescent level, but it's close enough for most (certainly better than florescent). This is kind of the case model for changing consumer patterns. Few people are going to give up a creature comfort completely just to save the environment. But people will change if the product is "better" or at minimum doesn't impact you much. That's why Tesla was smart in launching the Tesla Roadster first, it's not just an electric car that may help reduce fossil fuel dependency, it's something rich playboys can brag about their superior 0-60 launch to other rich playboys. Sometimes (as in LED bulbs) a "government push" does help, but (as Tesla showed) it's not necessarily required.
 * The issue with meat is, we aren't even anywhere close to synthesizing something that's superior in many ways to, say, the tenderloin of a cow or even the ground up sludge of a chicken nugget. Technology has come up with some okay-ish alternatives to the hamburger (the Beyond / Impossible stuff) but honestly, looking at the ingredients of those things, I'd rather have a black bean patty, which is what it is, and tastes quite good (not a burger, but that's fine) on its own. Lab grown meat is at least a couple decades away from anything usable, and there is a good chance of the story for this being the ol' fusion "always 30 years away" problem. At least in the United States, there has been a noticeable shift away from beef towards the more "climate friendly" chicken... though the shift probably has more been due to cost (chicken is the cheapest common animal protein) and that red meat's gotten a bit of a bad health rep, it helps some I suppose. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 19:32, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Did you recently get a lobotomy? How the ever loving fuck are you inferring such misrepresentations of my position? 20:08, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Except, to use your lightbulb example, this would be like telling consumers that they need to use little to no light, instead of making the fucking lightbulb companies produce better fucking lightbulbs. Is my position clear enough now? Do I have to draw a fucking diagram? 20:28, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Honestly, the biggest problem with the vegan "movement" is how little political backing there actually is to show for it. Veganism isn't really an unpopular stance in the cultural zeitgeist, especially in the past two decades that I've been alive. It's always been popular for kids to realize they'd rather not want to eat meat because they can't handle the slaughter and torture of animals. Unfortunately for those kids, there is in practice not much that is done politically. Almost all of the vegan "discourse" is focused on converting others to being vegans, as our page on veganism shows; very little of it is actually focused on ending things like chicken batteries. This kinda makes it vulnerable to well... woo-pushing, personality cults and all that authie nonsense that we don't like here (a group that doesn't do anything to advance it's goals meaningfully will turn to recruitment and infighting). Actual political change just... doesn't really seem to happpen. As a result, just from my own anecdotal observations, about 66% of kids who enter high school end up as vegan in their first or second year. Of those kids, in about 2 more years, 66% will stop being vegan. Vegans gain and bleed members at an incredibly high rate, because once you're vegan... there isn't really anything you can do. The only action groups are "activists" like PETA (which at times border on domestic terror groups), most mainstream political parties generally don't care about animal welfare and the ones that do tend to be extremely hardline one-issue parties that don't function as anything but populistic bickering.
 * If you want veganism to actually persist, you need to well... get vegans running in existing political parties at the local and national level. Have them try to set policy that accomodates the lives of animal welfare, encourage vegans to vote for them, have them hold policies that make them appealing with being vegan as a bonus. Because if there's a vegan in charge of say, a local municipality, they can block the construction of a mass farm being build, which reduces the amount of those farms. Yelling at people to stop eating meat doesn't do anything, because even though there is a cultural zeitgeist amongst teenagers to be vegetarian, there is no real political force backing that up. I mean I guess if you have a fetish for being the underdog? Then the status quo of focusing vegan discourse around converting people to be vegans might be a good idea to you, but like... there's kink communities for that stuff? I think that'd be a healthier way to get your sub fix than toying around with serious political ideas. Dom/sub jokes aside though, this is kind of relevant to the current discussion and what I feel is being missed here. -- Techpriest (talk) 20:45, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes GC, before I had my lobotomy, I was able to read people's minds and guess just what exactly they meant when what they meant was not apparantly what it seemed to mean. Sorry, you will have to be patient with me, post-operation. Shabi  DOO  22:31, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Nah, no, I don't blame you for GC's flailing takes here regarding mitigation measures. GC, guy who says "we gotta go after production" and then "We have little to no control over that production process." in the same breath. GC, guy who brings in arguments related to "prohibition of meat" and "whatabout electronics and clothing" and the "quality of life is reduced" exaggeration in response to the suggestion to cut down meat. That's a strawman, GC, no one has argued any of these rebuttals you're making. Another example of your, frankly, nonsense, that "have companies make better lightbulbs!!!!" are they already not doing this? Consumer demand has definitely pressured these companies to make lightbulbs that are way better today than they were decades ago. And so your response to this is accuse Shabidoo of having a "lobotomy" and lay unwarranted condescending hostility to PanGalacticGargleBlaster for questioning your claims!? You know better, GC, stop having your anger write nonsense! 22:42, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I apologize for the insult, I'm just a bit tired, as I've more or less repeated the same position to around four people for almost a full 24 hours now, and it's a bit frustrating when I'm going "the primary focus should be on the roots, not the branches" and you seem to respond with tacit endorsement of only going after the metaphorical branches. That's no excuse, and I apologize for my outburst nonetheless.


 * "guy who brings in arguments related to "prohibition of meat" and "whatabout electronics and clothing"" That's the supposed whataboutism? I'm pointing out problems with production lines in general, and explaining why I'm so focused on addressing those production lines rather than attacking people for consuming the finished product. This is a valid comparison for examining the issue of meat production and the negative impact thereof. Like, how is it not valid? I'm saying "well what about these?", not with the intent to distract you from meat production, but to highlight the issues with a proposed strategy and address accusations of hypocrisy from Ken. In my view, it's hypocritical to take such an absolutist position on meat consumption, but to not apply that same ethical standard to other equally blood soaked production sectors. It is, in fact, antithetical to the concept of ethics itself, as an inconsistent ethical framework is not a valid ethical framework. For example, Ken bragged about eating shellfish, while bashing people for eating meat, despite the fishing industries being one of the worst offenders in the meat sector when it comes to negative environmental impact. Nets, when damaged, are simply thrown overboard. Over-fishing is not only tolerated, it's encouraged. Reefs are destroyed, and with them the delicate balance of the aquatic world.


 * To bring up other sectors, such as coltan and lithium mining for electronics, runoff poisons the water supplies in developing nations, causing potentially incalculable amounts of damage to both humans and the natural world. These things not only can be compared to develop solutions to the problems caused by these industries, but they should be compared, as the global economy, from top to bottom, interconnects.


 * The constant hostility, while started by Ken, has been continued by users I would have thought would understand the nuances and complexities of the issues of ethics, environmentalism, and industrial reform. The continued propagation of a black/white worldview both astounds and frustrates me. I would think my position, based on a critical look at consumerist capitalism, would be easy to understand, even if you don't support it. 01:14, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Hear, hear. OTOH, once a belief system becomes a tribal totem, it becomes A LOT easier to recruit people, and nuance goes out the window for the sake of solidarity. This is one reason why there are so many anti-vaxxers. They weren't convinced by Facebook essays citing studies they barely understood, if that. Once anti-vaxxery became a symbol of belonging, they didn't need to and no longer cared. Sunday school environmental moralism likewise is the flag of a different tribe. It isn't about what works; it's about displaying loyalty and solidarity. That sort of position worries me, because it leads to anti-democratic positions; morality must be imposed by the vanguard of the righteous, backsliders must be condemned, and nobody in their right mind will ever vote for that shit. Among the hard greens, it is a commonplace to see proposals to massively cull the human population. The belief that we couled feed the world by hectoring, and ultimately forcing, everyone to give up meat is of a piece with that, I think. Again, who's going to vote for that? Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 04:34, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

i bought a pork pie hat
i think i might be a hipster nowAMassiveGay (talk) 12:01, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Depends. Is it a felt bonnet with a somewhat depressed crown, or is it a savory pastry of the sort obtainable at a British eatery? Kencolt (talk) 12:08, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * After googling, am also getting "mayor of an small American town about seventy years ago," which is awesome. Artificius (talk) 12:13, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * its this one specifically AMassiveGay (talk) 12:16, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Heisenberg! I knew it! 138.207.198.74 (talk) 16:00, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Goodbye Pork Pie Hat. Bongolian (talk) 18:18, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Is the Democratic party really communist? Are American public schools really brainwashing students into Marxism?
So many are claiming. I personally find it questionable but don't have the skill to debate given I know little of the meaning of communism or Marxism. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 2607:FB90:651F:2433:11C:EC03:D886:D547 / talk
 * Do anonymous users who pass by here and ask innocent seeming yet loaded questions really have some sealioning agenda? I don't know. I am not intelligent enough about sea lioning, but hopefully we can start a dialogue and figure it all out. Shabi  DOO  22:26, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Answering questions at gutter-bottom entry level of argumentation (i.e. "please prove sexism exists") is almost never worth it. 22:29, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * But still - to the rest of the world the US system has 2 parties about as "Right" as Genghis Khan - 1 marginally less so than the other. Your fascists plays dog-whistle with the word "communist" and enough of your stupid population believes it to make it worthwhile. Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 20:20, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Russian Federation and the Republic of Mali
https://news.yahoo.com/top-russian-diplomat-defends-mercenaries-005032566.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall

Russian expansionism is certainly continuing. Russia's excuse for having mercenaries in Mali: Fighting terrorism. I am leaning more towards Russia attempting to establish de facto control of Mali. --Channel 48 EAS (talk) 01:31, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * How come Russia gets more scrutiny from you, and not the established and very continuous US military presence in Africa. I have no desire to defend Russia, or Mr. Putin, I'm just curious as to why this has peaked your attention specifically. 'Legion what do you want from me  04:50, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Russia are not attempting to establish 'de facto' control of Mali, that is just silly. inlfuence, yes, de facto control, no. France has recently been dialing back a significant military presence in mali combating an insurgency, something the mailan government is not happy with. they've looked elswhere for someone to fill that role and russia is happy to fill it. its controversial only because a) the french are pissed because they see francophone africa as in their 'sphere of influence', and b) its not the russians proper, but a mercenary outfit with an abysmal human rights record. AMassiveGay (talk) 08:36, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * " a mercenary outfit with an abysmal human rights record." I can't think of any mercenary group that doesn't have an abysmal human rights record, to be fair. Cardinal Chang (talk) 09:38, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not absolving the US of what it does. --Channel 48 EAS (talk) 17:20, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Has armoured skeptic started promoting conspiracy theories now?
I don’t care for armoured skeptic and never had, I know a lot of his older videos were about politics and bashing on the left, but I do recall a few videos were of actually debunking stupid bullshit. Out of curiosity I had a look at his channel and first thing I was hit with was his Tinfoil helmet series which really perplexed me, but apparently it’s all “just for fun” so I thought it might be just some tongue in cheek of “oh let’s make a unified conspiracy theory of everything that makes sense if you don’t think about it critically haha.” I decided to watch another one of his videos that was analysing actual conspiracy theories and he was very leaning towards almost believing it. The first 2/3 of the video was him explaining it without any critical thought just saying “this person said that, and this [frivolous] evidence supports that.” Then the last 1/3 of the video is the most half-hearted attempt at a skeptical analysis that basically could be summed up as “well maybe it’s not true because [insert reason here] but who knows could be true. What do you guys think?” Call it what you want but that’s not skepticism, that’s just like any other fucking channel that covers conspiracies and feels like they really want to believe but adds a slight bit of doubt to save face and seem credible. Oh, and as a cherry on top, videos aren’t sourced. So has he done a 180 and started promoting this bullshit? We really don’t need another channel that covers the same bullshit without any nuance…—WMS (talk) 13:41, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I know I shouldn't be asking, but.. Who is Armoured Skeptic and should we really care? Cardinal Chang (talk) 13:53, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Armoured_Skeptic 2A02:1812:2C66:D000:A10E:CF6A:8455:4454 (talk) 14:14, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Well it is a shitty development when a sceptic who deconstructs conspiracies is starting to semi-endorse them. Shabi  DOO  14:34, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * He's been pissed at us since around 2015. Score one for us. Bongolian (talk) 17:47, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

AS bought into Jordan Peterson's bill C-16 hysteria no questions asked back when that was a thing so this isn't really a new development. 24.228.242.185 (talk) 17:30, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah right… So not the best example of a skeptic from the get go it seems. It just annoys me how he still uses the skeptic identity despite not being a good example of one. And yeah, haha, score one for us!—WMS (talk) 11:33, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

I have always been "skeptical" of AS and I remember seeing that he had many alt-right Catholic fans. He went hard into supporting reactionaries during Gamergate. 47.145.125.78 (talk) 06:48, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Arizona Audit
The GOP in my home state are almost done with their circus: the draft version of the results confirm Biden’s win and even indicate Trump lost some votes. I have been falsely thinking my taxes were going to this but I guess not. I am ashamed this whole scenario has played out in my homeland, what an embarrassment. That second article shows that some QAnon folk have helped pay for it. There are still dickheads around my side of town in their lifted trucks and “F*CK BIDEN” flags on their tailgates. A fat old white guy was waving a “Trump won” sign on an overpass yesterday. Ugh. Probliknaut (talk) 14:03, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The issue is whether or not ballot harvesting/canvasing was going on, and that would never be picked up in a recount. I think the conspiracy theory is, the lockdowns are going to be extended to just before the 2022 election, so that ballots will again be mailed to everyone.  16:30, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That most certainly is a conspiracy theory. The reasons for this audit changed so often, and it was a big waste of taxpayer funds, primarily just to make a loser feel better about himself.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 17:35, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * is it taxpayer paid? I mean besides the various politician’s time. I have been lazily trying to figure out. Probliknaut (talk) 17:49, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is. The Republican-controlled Arizona Senate ordered it and specifically hired Cyber Ninjas. Bongolian (talk) 17:51, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Like the (which failed by 25%), this was just a waste of moey.Andrew5 (talk) 18:22, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Well shit I want my taxes back. Anyways. Yeah I am mostly convinced it’s a show to get wing nuts and Trump loyalists excited. Probliknaut (talk) 18:24, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Not to mention that because of Cyber Ninjas lax security protocols, some equipment needs to be replaced. Cyber Ninjas also requested routers, which also would have had to be replaced. All in all, waste of time, the report confirms Biden's win but still says there was likely fraud, and it has inspired copycats, most recently in Texas.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:48, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

How many audits need to be done before traitors Republicans get the fucking hint that their false messiah lost? --Get Vaccinated (talk) 19:50, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem is, Trump refuses to concede, and tens of millions agree with everything he says. Many of them live in Arizona. Also, over 50% of Republicans in Congress agree with Trump on over 90% of issues. That's why if he runs in 2024, he will very likely get it and therefore lose. And if Trump controlls the 2022 midterms, the GOP might lose the House. Remember - Biden is way more popular then Trump. Andrew5 (talk) 19:39, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The GOP doesn't have the house. The democrats have had a house majority since 2018.-Flandres (talk) 19:48, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * its a little early to be predicting election results. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:17, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Correction - 2019. Also I was predicting election results. People have been starting ever since 2021. Also, keep an eye on OH-15. Andrew5 (talk) 13:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * people have but people are idiots AMassiveGay (talk) 13:47, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Voters also get complacent. The question becomes, will the GOP/Trump constantly saying the election will be stolen, depress turnout on the right, as it seemed to do in both Georgia run-offs. Or will the GOP/Trump efforts to subvert future elections succeed in 2022/2024. It's frustrating because the 2016 election basically never ended, and the 2020 election started a week after Trump was inaugurated. People are generally burned out, with three elections in a row being the most important election in history, and sadly, the next two are actually the most important.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 17:18, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Well I am still good and pissed off, at least. Did you see that Trump is once again lying and declaring that the AZ audit showed evidence of “massive fraud”? All it takes is for him to lie and his followers to believe his word over others.Probliknaut (talk) 19:32, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Trump supporters claim that funding education, science and social welfare programs are socialism and waste of tax payer money but they have no problem with wasting tax payer money on audits that will show the same thing over and over again- Trump lost. End of story. --Channel 48 EAS (talk) 20:56, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

The University of Texas is getting a new "think tank" called the Liberty Institute
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2021/09/24/ut-austins-liberty-institute-whats-professors-ask?fbclid=IwAR1DouIZczWmdIh2TkvEBHhVvTw8X1605KH8uekJ4BKTrCM7oHfLtnXn77Y

The faculty know zilch about this new think tank. The only actual thing that is known is that it is funded by die hard conservatives. Call it a hunch but I am reminded of the Ministry of Truth, Ministry of Plenty and the Ministry of Love from George Orwell's 1984. --Channel 48 EAS (talk) 00:31, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Libertarian billionaire asshole has run various companies called Liberty, although it's probably too generic a word to be sure. These orgs seem keen to keep their funders secret. The Texas Tribune article that links to is probably more useful, but still can't find who's behind it. The Texas state government seems to be giving money, because if there's one thing Texas needs it's more liberty. Ugh indeed. --Annanoon (talk) 10:24, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Liberty is fine. If these lots promoted something useful in regards to capitalism and free markets like, say, the writings of Adam Smith, that would be one thing. But no, you get an arrogant yahoo who loves Ayn Rand so much that he financed those awfully received Atlas Shrugged movies. (I'd love to hear what these Texas Ayn Rand kool-aid drinkers think about that not-exactly-live-and-let-live Texas abortion law.) So we know how it's going to go. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 21:37, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Paul Gosar
I think it's ready to be moved to mainspace. I think it can be in mainspace.Andrew5 (talk) 17:43, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Pretty fleshed out, shorter articles in mainspace. 22 refs as well.
 * 2) Just because a permabanned user (Scrooge) created it doesn't mean we can't show his work publically.
 * 3) On mission.

The low quality of the school system in my area: Science education and something odd
The science books in the school system I went too had severely outdated information and due to this, I noticed something: The Apologia Science curriculum which supports creationism is actually better than the public school science curriculum. I watched a few YouTube videos showcasing Apologia science books. How is it possible for a public education system to be worse than a creationist private education system?

How is that for sad. --Channel 48 EAS (talk) 21:59, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you have any specifics? What brings this up? Probliknaut (talk) 03:38, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Example- when I was in 12th grade in Astronomy/Meteorology class (Astronomy during 1st semester and Meteorology during 2nd semester), the textbooks had barely any modern information while the teacher tried to teach using modern information. Lessons were inconsistent and students literally had to use smart phones to look up information. In the Apologia books, there was more modern information although there were Bible verses appearing frequently. --Channel 48 EAS (talk) 20:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeesh smart phones started being a thing right around 12th grade for me. Frankly I don’t remember primary/secondary school content. A pretty poor situation for your area’s students, though. Probliknaut (talk) 01:34, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Rant/offload about Mandela effect
I’m fucking done! I’ve read so much of the Mandela effect bullshittery, I’ve been exposed to so much of the pseudoscience bullshit and this to me has gone too far. Normally I would get anxious about some random bullshi and then get on with my day, not really affecting me too badly but today, today it really fucked me up. For context I’m currently at Uni and was meant to go out tonight, there’s this big event that I really wanted to go to but, behold, the Mandela effect bullshittery appeared. I looked up the TMMT (teenage mutant ninja turtle) 2003 intro and I was under the impression that there was a mistake in the intro. Thought the mistake was that the vocalist said Michelangelo was the brains. In the intro turns out it calls him a wise guys. What I must have been thinking of was the mistake in the MC hammer tent song where he calls Raphael the leader. Now, I found out about that fact about 5 years ago and I’ve not listened to the 2003 intro in a long time, so the memory most likely got muddled up and I just got the things mixed up. On top of that, the fact that he was called a wise guy probably contributed to the misinterpretation because of the word wise and the association with intellect. That is a normal reaction. That is a normal explanation. That is, most likely, what I would have realised were I not exposed to so much Mandela effect things lately. Instead of using my brain, because I was convinced there was a mistake somewhere (at the time I also didn’t realise there was a mistake in a different tmnt song) my mind goes into overdrive and I start searching up any reference to that intro. On top of that, my mind starts making up false memories that make sense and seem logical/real but aren’t because well they’re false memories. I have spent 3-4 hours listening to the song on repeat, trying to work this out because my mind straight away jumped to the conjecture that “I’ve jumped reality” where a minor thing that doesn’t affect me in any way shape or form was the only thing that changed. I’m not sat in my flat on my own, hearing the music and people having fun whilst I try to calm down from this banging headache that that freak out had given me… sorry for the rant and I’m aware I have no one to blame but myself for constantly searching this stuff up but the conjecture just gets so accepted and so many people are hard pressed about the shifting reality being the case that I just became susceptible to that way of thinking in the sense of a lie being said enough times that it became the truth.—WMS (talk) 22:46, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * If reading about a non-essential topic is causing you this much grief, then not reading it is probably a good idea. If you cannot quit cold turkey, then try at least occasionally abstaining from reading something that leads to more upset than benefit. A few things that may put it all into perspective:
 * We ALL get hit by the various forms of the Mandela effect (it is NOT just you)
 * It is NOT a big deal if you mix up the words to songs, TV shows, books, slogans, or most things cultural, business, political etc (things don't stop working and it doesn't create any tangible barriers
 * Nothing as silly as this should ever get in the way of going out and having fun
 * Shabi DOO  23:17, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Shabidoo is right. you should do something more confortable and productive then continue. People misremeber, and if there is a lot of people... well, there is a saying that a person is smart and people are dumb, so they probably just believed the other's misremebering. tbh, I think the Mandela effect is a hoax, created to troll by some malignant party for a laugh which got out of hand. An Advocate (talk) 23:27, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You're being very emotional for no reason whatsoever brother. It happens, just live with it. Why should this have to ruin your day? 00:15, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I thought that I ruminated a lot and got anxious about stuff. Go take a walk and do something else. Listen to another song. I wish you the best and hope you have a good day tomorrow. Probliknaut (talk) 03:41, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

to really mess with your head its teenage mutant hero turtles in the uk AMassiveGay (talk) 08:35, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

First Norway, now Germany...
It seems the left is actually starting to do well again in Europe. Plutocow (talk) 04:54, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It remains to be seen if the SPD can form a government coalition, since they and the Greens together can’t reach a majority without including a third party. I’m just happy the AfD lost seats. 06:34, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * But it‘s only because the SPD adopted a similar anti-refugee rhetoric like the Afd. 06:49, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Part of the right's loss of power can be explained by people wanting technocrats to tackle the Covid-19 pandemic. Once the pandemic is over, people will focus on issues where the right was gaining traction like immigration. If the technocrats don't return things to pre-pandemic normality, their approval will drop. JW2873 (talk) 06:54, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Goodbye CDU, Deutschland, meet your new boss, red CDU. 'Legion what do you want from me  08:57, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * There's been a lot of talk about an SPD-Green-Linke coalition but SPD-Green-FDP seems more likely, with all three of those fairly centrist and liberal. Who knows (although I would assume an SPD-CDU coalition is out of the question but that has seemed unthinkable before and happened). --Annanoon (talk) 10:27, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * SPD-Green-Linke doesn't have enough seats. So it will be either SPD-Green-FDP or CDU-Green-FDP. 10:58, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This all seems like total childs play in comparison with Belgian coalition forming which sometimes includes 5 parties. Can take over a year to negotiate their agenda. Interesting thing: the country seems to go a lot better while a beaurocrat temporary government takes over during the coalition negotiations. Shabi  DOO  13:01, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Similar to Canada, seems like for the most part, this changes very little. The Greens made a great showing, probably disappointed they didn't crack 20%, LDP is going to be a junior partner, but will have outsized influence, which isn't great news for the Greens. I think a grand coalition, SDP/CDU with Greens would likely best represent Germany, but as an American looking in, really seems like a "Traffic Light" coalition is likely.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 18:44, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Until COVID hit, Germany ran a budget surplus. Not many major world leaders can say that.  18:49, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I hope FDP and Greens would keep their promise and abolish the blasphemy law. (You can get imprisoned (!) for blasphemy) SPD is neutral on this issue, while CDU even want harsher punishments. 11:16, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm actually upset. Prior to COVID, Germany was pretty much the only major western country to have a budget surplus.  I don't know if this new guy will be better, but practically every leader in every other country has been much, much worse.  16:52, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * In fact I have seen (though not yet read) more than one book/article on the topic of countries looking towards the German political/economic system as a country to admire and emulate. Many Western countries admire and want to emulate many German political/economic policies and structures. As far as I know...no Western countries currently admire the UK's politics, trade or international relations nor are trying to emulate it (or want to be it) as they may previously once have. Note that since the absolute fracaso of Brexit, far right parties in Europe stopped even hinting at wanting to leave the EU or following British anything. Proportional representation is ideal. Level headed policies is idea. A non-toxic, non-knee-jerk reaction to political issues is idea. A non-derranged media is ideal. Shabi  DOO  12:38, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

People making covid policy
So one my friends from high school is a grad student whomst has been workin part time for the health department, working on research and models for various covid scenarios in order to advise our state government on what policies to do and such. It’s been p fascinating (and terrifying) talking to him about it, but one thing that’s been really hittin me is like. The people who actually get to make the decisions are the ones least affected by those decisions? Like, luckily our state’s gov seems to be generally opposed to, uh, mass death, but it just really hit me that, if they did for some reason decide to cow to pressure to do things like end lockdowns/mask mandates/vax rollouts/etc, well the thing is. The state premier, for example, would never have to be one of the people constantly at risk of getting sick every single day, or having to desperately compete for care if they do get sick? Some of my friends/acquaintances across the world have had to deal with things like, convincing doctors that they’re worth saving, while dealing with things that make it much harder (many ppl with certain disabilities, for example, are often treated as less worthy of limited healthcare resources). A lot more of my friends have had to spend their time living in abject terror, since they have to choose between going to work and putting themselves at risk of a horrible illness, or staying home and getting evicted/starving/etc. It’s kinda fucked when you realise the people, with the most power here, are also the people most insulated from the consequences of their decisions. Not entirely insulated of course — nobody is really safe from this virus. But still. I don’t have any suggestions or big points or anything, but it is something that’s been on my mind. (Also feeling weird about it since two of my best friends are living in places currently dealing with horrific covid conditions idk) 13:11, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You have it backwards. The people in charge are the most insulated from any economic effects of the lockdowns.  None of them are going to lose their business over it, none of them even have to give up getting their hair done.  At the same time, they are also a bunch of old geezers that are at risk of dying from the disease.  And it's not just the politicians, but the people in charge of the media too.  So the rich, old farts are making the decisions for everyone, and deciding how to present all the information.
 * Then there's the blatant dishonesty with, well, everything regarding the virus. First we are told masks are useless, then we are told we have to wear masks everywhere.  I understand why they lied at first; there weren't enough masks for the nurses in the hospitals, but the public despises being lied to, and there would've been more compliance had we not been lied to.  Next we are told the BLM protests had virtually no impact on COVID rates because they were outdoors, but we still couldn't gather outdoors because it would spread the disease.  Now there's the election nonsense that's always a fight over voter suppression or voter ID's, or whatever, but always something, this time it was mail in ballots.  Then only a couple of days after the election results are announced do we finally get confirmation about not just the vaccine, but multiple vaccines.  Sure it was mostly a timing thing, but if you were already suspicious, it looked like the companies were withholding information in order to influence the election.  13:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * EC everyone in politics are making decisions they are not effected by. how many politicians making decisions on the dole, on the military, in school, etc are currently on the dole, in the military, or in school, for example? its the nature of the beast, and politicians who can connect with joe everyman regardless of policy tend to do well. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:55, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * its when they start making decisions they are directly effected by (tax breaks, awarding contracts etc) when things get really fucked up AMassiveGay (talk) 13:58, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * "Lied" is not equal to "insufficient evidence", which was the case for masks at the beginning of the pandemic. The BLM protests were not as bad overall in part because more people masked during them. It took a while to figure out that the virus doesn't spread that well outdoors unless it's a super packed crowd. (I'm not sure all politicians are aware of this yet.) Those in charge in rich nations created furlough programs precisely because everyone knew that some of the people most impacted from a lockdown would be the service industry. Politicians, as a job that involves a lot of people interaction, have it way worse than my cushy work at home job, though obviously they were better insulated than the service industry who had to deal with maskholes. With the vaccination and proper protocol until the nasty variants fade, COVID doesn't seem like something that should be much of a terror anymore. I don't have much sympathy for the information ignorant at this point, not at least when so many information ignorant in the US act like toddlers. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 14:20, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * No, Fauci absolutely lied to the public regarding the mask policy at first. My family is all healthcare, there simply wasn't enough PPE because of the supply chain disruptions.  The masking is still an issue now because you have all these politicians not wearing masks when the cameras aren't on, then putting on the masks to make a show for the cameras.  It's the usual political bullshit.
 * As for packed crowds, you didn't see people routinely criticizing the BLM protests over COVID when we still thought outdoor gatherings were dangerous. This was because politics, but if you were already pissed off about the lockdowns it absolutely looked suspicious.
 * My stance now is that vaccines are available, going on a plane or into a concert or bar is not a constitutionally protected right. Anyplace that requires photo ID to enter should also require proof of vaccination, but only those places.  Likewise, the bars should occasionally get a "raid" to check that the patrons are all vaccinated the way bars are checked for underage patrons.  This is absolutely not a "papers please" situation because we already require "papers" in those instances.  This would strongly encourage people to get vax'd if they aren't already, but if not, tough shit.  Everything else, open up; at this point virtually all the people who are at risk are vaccinated, and barring the extremely rare incidence of those who are allergic (who generally only know this because they got the first dose anyway), fukkem, if they get sick it's on them.  14:41, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * i seem to remember guidance from WHO advised against face masks and at the very least not effective in preventing covid. the this changed, but early on face masks were officially unnecessary. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:12, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * They did until covid transmission was better understood and masks became a better protection with social distancing. The guidance changed as a better understanding of covid and it's transmission was made, which is normal just rather confusing for a public who seem to need/want a rigid mantra to deal with anything really, I think Phil Hammond put it best on page 94, "Follow the science, may be a nice simple approach but this a whole new virus and pandemic, there is no science." Cardinal Chang (talk) 17:51, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I just have a seething hatred of celebrities like Oprah, who has the nerve to shame people who aren't vaccinated, when she is second only to Mr Wakefield himself in terms of being responsible for the general anti-vaxxer movement. Not sure where that came from, but, ugh, screw her.  18:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * She is after all responsible for Dr Oz and Dr Phil, amongst many other annoying fucking trends. Cardinal Chang (talk) 18:14, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, her show has released over 9000 bad ideas into the public and they're all killing people. Why anyone listens to the drivel her show and its wretched spawn is beyond me. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 22:34, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * One of my favourites is when she had on the author of the book The Secret. Now essentially the crux of the Secret is "think positive thoughts for positive things to happen to you." A bizarre twist on solopsism, but that's contemporary America for ya. Anyway, here is Oprah, a woman of African origin, a woman who's ancestors were slaves. A woman who was born into poverty, and was subjected to sexual abuse as a child. Promoting a book that says positive things happen to people who think positively and is unable to see the inverse of this nonsense, that people who think negatively must have bad things happen them. So, did she think negatively to be sexually abused? Did her ancestors collectively think negatively to result in not only slavery but decades, centuries even of having to fight for the right to be viewed as an equal. And lets not even go into concentration camps or the Pol Pot's year zero. Fucking ghastly such a person should promote fucking quackery to her trusting audience. Cardinal Chang (talk) 11:23, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if Oprah did have all those positive thoughts as a child, that things would get better for her. And they did get better. Trauma affects people differently. 13:38, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oprah's a weird case. Remember that the Oprah Winfrey Show started in the late 1980s / early 1990s culture when there was a tabloid talk show boom. Think Jerry Springer, Geraldo Rivera, Maury Povich and the like. I can honestly say that of that lot, Oprah probably did have the "best" show (and ultimately came out with the most cultural influence of all talk shows born in the 1980s and 1990s), by simply having a confessional style, avoiding the carny crap of Springer etc., and embracing that sort of positive-thinking-by-mantras deal that is in reality too sugary, but has been That doesn't mean it is that great. Oprah has done a helluva a lot to give a platform to anti-vaxxers and other anti-science pseudohealth bullshit (even though Oprah herself is not an anti-vaxxer at all). But before COVID-19 my impression was that the full-on anti-vaccination crowd really was not very strong in numbers, and the "Oprah effect" of junk health science was more one of Americans wasting money on bullshit supplements promoted by Dr. Phil and Dr. Oz and the like. Such may have set the stage along with the rest of the "alternative health" scene, but from my vantage point, the conservative populists and Internet trolls that made anti-vaccination an American conservative identity stance only vaguely align with the Oprah watching crowd of old. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 14:21, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Oath Keepers get hacked
Weee. Nazis having a bad day cheers up mine. Also there are a few .gov mail addresses in the leak which raises some interesting questions about the US government. -- Techpriest (talk) 22:02, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I will now play them the world's smallest violin. --Channel 48 EAS (talk) 01:04, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

China outlawed the Bitcoin.
https://www.inputmag.com/culture/china-declares-bitcoin-illegal-as-much-of-the-world-remains-bullish?utm_campaign=fbproliqinput&utm_medium=pro&utm_source=facebook&utm_term=12&lsid=eummtuzmjc&fbclid=IwAR3RAEpr-FHIaWjxOwas4trnjE6D3qBpdV7n4qFvCTdVeuFWlatPbXaKMOM

Not sure what to make of this. I am not an economics expert so my thoughts on this should not be taken too seriously. Digital currency will likely become the new norm in the future. What do you make of this? --Channel 48 EAS (talk) 01:11, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Probably a good thing, Bitcoin is such a huge contributor to climate change. Plutocow (talk) 01:17, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Why would Crypto become the future and not, say, Fine Art? Like Cryptocurrency, Fine Art has value only because we say it has value, but unlike Bitcoin, it has already proven itself to be a great store of value for centuries, is much more easily displayed/enjoyed in your mansion, does not require the existence of an electrical infrastructure, is much less likely to be damaged than a harddrive, requires minimal energy to exchange, etc etc.  05:22, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Good, bitcoin is just like the Dot-Com Bubble a disaster in making (and nothing like the too lazy to follow up on Tulip mania of 17th Century Holland.)  Cardinal Chang (talk) 11:56, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The concept of the blockchain probably will remain relevant in the future as a transaction / digital ledger of some sort. And a digital currency with the authority of a nation's central bank is a very real possibility as well (no doubt, if it happens, it can be designed to avoid the bullshit computational tomfoolery of bitcoin and therefore avoid the climate change issue). As far as bitcoin goes, libertarian naivety once again has proven to be excellent at enabling various crooks and scammers, and I wouldn't be surprised if the West also cracks down on it eventually just because of its major role in ransomware and the like. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 13:50, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I had seen this the other day as well but am in the same boat; not an economist by any means. I do understand, though, that China already banned crypto from their national banks in 2013 so I wonder the depth of the impact by criminalizing it across the board. Probliknaut (talk) 13:59, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * More of a message thing, to contain Crypto. The Chinese criminals who already use it will still use it, but the inherent value of a currency is its ability to be traded with regular folks in exchange for goods and services.  Regular folks don't want to run afoul of the Chinese government, and by them being more hesitant to join in on the crypto-craze, Crypto becomes less valuable for criminals.  14:44, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This is excellent news. Mining crypto currency is probably the most ridiculous use of electricity yet. As long as this reduces mining it is a good thing. Revenant Raven (talk) 16:55, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Positive News
Pardon my ignorance, but I can’t seem to understand how the WIGO for positive news works, as there isn’t an Edit option. Can anyone point me in the right direction? Also just because it made me smile, the article I had in mind was this one about factions of Oklahoma’s GOP being much more welcoming of Afghan refugees than others. Probliknaut (talk) 14:08, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

So about "devious licking" and closed bathrooms...
Of course, to combat the devious licking scare, almost all of the men's rooms are closed. I decided "fuck it" and I went to the men's room anyway, and the bathrooms are still useable with everything still intact. I feel that it's clear sexism to prevent guys like me from going to a working bathroom over some gender stereotype. Is this something I can be rightly mad about or would it be reactionary? 14:35, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I feel old, I spent several minutes trying to figure this one out. So “licking” is theft? Personally I think being mad is totally valid but I am uncertain who you should be mad at- the hip children who are stealing soap dispensers, or the school for reacting?Probliknaut (talk) 14:40, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's basically breaking and stealing shit in the school. I'm mad at both those that are doing it and the school's paranoia. 14:42, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Then be mad at both. Let the hate flow through you. And pee in a garbage bin in retaliation. Probliknaut (talk) 14:44, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * As an old fart, I'm not hip enough in the TikTok to know if this "devious licks" (read: stealing shit) TikTok trend is actually a real thing, or if it's akin to old school lulz like jenkem and 9000 penises that Very Serious Adults get Very Concerned about without looking at the plausibility first. Seems like per the it's a mixture of both, like maybe a few staged viral videos happened and then a few dum dums "jumped off a bridge" and actually did it for real. Can't say for sure, though. First impression is, as usual, the worst blame falls on the Oh Noes Moral Panic!!!! school administrators, though. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 14:55, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Prayer-based alt-right IT security?
Very recent news of a second leak of Epik data, "the /b/ sides", containing 70 GB of bootable Epik server system disk images.

It also mentioned something about the earlier leak, and after reading it (quoted below) I felt I just had to add something about this to the RW article (and did):

--ApooftGnegiol (talk) 12:05, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This isn't surprising, his Twitter feed basically is a strange mix of Bible quotes and CEO style motivational mantras blended together. Not to mention, both libertarian / deregulation / decentralization ideas blended together with anti-corporatism (amusing, such is yet another example of very laughable libertarian naivety). A lot of cherry-picked historical stuff too, including a fun tweet on Biblical longevity that puts him in Answers in Genesis bullshitting territory. Not a whole lot of IT related tweets, which given the shit security at Epik figures. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 14:01, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * If anyone wants it, here is a transcript of that conference. It's quite a read. -- Techpriest (talk) 14:11, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * These chuds cannot catch a break, can they? [[file:laughing.gif]] Senioritas (talk) 22:41, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That's amusing that Kirtaner used his Anonymous handle to join the video conference! Monster can't even manage the mute button it seems; he's also not that good at managing a meeting or answering questions directly. This video of Kirtaner is worth watching. Bongolian (talk) 04:04, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

ATTENTION: IT IS NOW OCTOBER
My birthday's in 3 days. More importantly, it looks like this will be an average fall for weather. ALso important to keep an eye on Sam. Andrew5 (talk) 00:50, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks like you'll get a new Japanese Prime Minister for your birthday. LongStylus (talk) 00:53, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Y'know what else I'll get? Extremely humid weather. RH at 80% at best, 88% at worst, and temps in the upper 60s and lower 70s (~19-22°C) and lots of rain. Andrew5 (talk) 01:07, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Meanwhile in Tokyo it'll have a high of 81°F (27°C) (realfeel 85°F/30°C (don't question it, it's a rounding thing, I know 85F is generally 29C)), and a low of 67°F (19°C). Right now though, Tokyo is having winds of 25-35 mph (40-56 kph) with gusts getting to 50+ mph (81+ kph), and severe rain and thunderstorms persisting until ~11:00 UTC. Andrew5 (talk) 01:12, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Fallacy Help
What do you call the fallacy (if this even is a fallacy) where you start with the effects and form there try to determine the causes of an event? An Advocate (talk) 20:53, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if I understand your question. If you're talking about mistaking cause and effect you might wanna Google reverse causation/causality. We don't have an article about it, albeit we should. GeeJayK (talk) 22:11, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That is just a description of an investigation or one form of enquiry. Trying to find the effect of a cause is not fallacious. However, you can make hasty conclusions about the cause of effects. For example: correlation doesn't imply causation or assuming a specific cause and then screwing around with evidence (or ignoring contrary evidence) to justify it. Imagine some humans start developing weird green spots on their body. Trying to determine the cause would be a pretty sensible thing to do. If you discovered that those people tended to work near computer screens, it would be fallacious to assume that working near computers is what causes the green spots without demonstrating a clear relationship between the two (it could be because they are sedentary while using their computers or in the end have nothing at all to do with computers, that correlation being an entire fluke). Likewise, you may just assume these green spots are gods punishment for letting homosexuals get married and find a shit ton of obscure ancient texts that justify this (which will have a 99.99999999999999 ad infinitum) chance of being pure fallacious bullshit). But the mission to explain what is causing an effect is simply human nature and a wise thing to do.  Shabi  DOO  22:27, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, it seems I have a bad habit of being incredibly vague. I will try to explain furhter:
 * Let us say, for example, that there was a big fire. This fire has no clear cause and no one will admit to starting the fire. Is it fallicious to, seeing that the fire benefited some people in some way, assume that those who benefitted from this fire had a hand in it's creation? An Advocate (talk) 22:43, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That would be a non sequitur, although as far as I'm aware this specific case you've mentioned does not have a name. GeeJayK (talk) 22:52, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This is somewhat outside of the formation of formal arguments. If the formal argument was:


 * P1. A fire was started by someone
 * P2. Person x had something to gain
 * C. Therefore person x started the fire


 * Then yes, that is a fallacy. A non-sequitur as this wouldn't be a logical conclusion even if the premises were true. If it is worded as:


 * P1. The fire was started by someone.
 * P2. X had much to gain from the fire.
 * C. Therefore X is a prime suspect.


 * Is not necessarily fallacious (though keep in mind this is only borderline a proper argument). This argument also depends on other factors and circumstances (like how you define a prime suspect etc). Fallacies relate to the forming of formal arguments and the quality and structures of premises and conclusions are an essential feature of those arguments. Assuming is not necessarily fallacious. It is the particular premises and conclusion that matter, how well they are formed, if the premises are true, if the conclusion follows and if any fallacies are made. That being said, arguments are usually a lot stronger when avoiding assumptions, hasty inquiry and maybes. Shabi  DOO  23:05, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Shabidoo. You are so helpful, if my only correction is that someone already benefitted from our hypothetical fire. But your point stands. An Advocate (talk) 23:12, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you are studying critical thinking (or at least the fallacies). Totally rocked my world. Should be mandatory study in high school. Shabi  DOO  12:00, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Zimbabwe's vaccine mandate: Conspiracy theorists will take this out of context
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/article254606507.html

Zimbabwe has mandated the COVID vaccine but here is the issue: Vaccine clinics keep running out of vaccine doses and you cannot go back to work without proof of vaccination.

I support the mandate but places of work do not give people a safety net such an unemployment. Lets not forget the places like Zimbabwe do not have labor unions. The case of being stuck between a rock and a hard place. --Channel 48 EAS (talk) 23:48, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Reddit brigade
https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/pua2e1/rationalwiki_classifying_this_sub_as/he1ueuw/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3

Watch out for a potential brigade from plebbit. 2603:9001:301:3600:640D:154E:B2EC:FFF5 (talk) 17:33, 24 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Yawn. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 17:38, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I am a former 4chan user and can tell you my eyes roll into the back of my head when I think “Reddit” Probliknaut (talk) 17:52, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Reddit's not bad if you stick to decent grade specialty subreddits. Apocalyptic shit is not one of those, of course.
 * Honestly, though, our Reddit page that categorized r/collapse under "pseudoscientists"... that's an odd take to me. First glance seems to be that the sub is basically "Chicken Little syndrome" in a nutshell, meaning they aren't making up dubious "facts" and trying to pass it off as science. Rather, they are merely over-reacting to very real problems. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 18:24, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The comments are hilarious. "I filed them under right-wing libertarian. And definitely not rational at all." "hey are hella right-wing, them pushing "rational" is the same as Ben Shapino pushing "facts" - it's just air coming out of a noise hole." This will be news to the Libertarians and right wingers who think we're godless communists. Lmao. 19:06, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Best I can tell, the idea that we're somehow right wing is based mostly on the Socialism and Communism articles here. It seems that not taking the leftmost possible stance in those areas renders RW centrist at best, and close to Nazis at worst.  Kencolt (talk) 12:05, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * As someone who's seen and interacted with his fair share of self-described socialists online, I've been noticing for a while (since Bernie Sanders lost the 2020 Democratic primary) that the culture of the "dirtbag left" has gotten really obnoxious and radical recently. It's increasingly characterized by a screeching hatred of capitalism and vigorous purity tests applied to fellow leftists, to the point where their onetime hero AOC is now branded a sellout. It also embraces the worst forms of "class-first" analysis of social issues, the kind that believes that every problem in society can be boiled down to class warfare ("no war but the class war"), that the Bible orthodox Marxism is the only path to salvation liberation, and that merely acknowledging the existence of racism and sexism in society is "identity politics". At worst, they're increasingly skeptical of the "democratic" part of "democratic socialism", even among those who aren't out-and-out tankies seeking out the edgiest positions just to "freak out the normies", and advocate alliances with right-wing populists and worse out of a belief that liberal capitalists are the greater enemy. (Jimmy Dore defending the Boogaloo boys on his show should've been the end of his credibility on the left.) I swear, political extremism, be it from the alt-right or the dirtbag left, is my generation's version of born-again Christianity. We believed we were too smart for religion, but it turned out that the old religions just didn't speak to us. Now we have religions that do. KevinR1990 (talk) 13:05, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * They're called the "Dirtbag left"? I thought it was the "Fringe Left"? 2A02:1812:2C66:D000:6110:E2BF:496:7587 (talk) 19:43, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a perspective thing, after all I'm not right-wing, but got called one here by an angry child. These guys are further left than RationalWiki, and therefore, RationalWiki as a whole must be right-wing in their mind. This right-wing/left-wing dichotomy is dumb and doesn't account for the underlying beliefs of a person. Take for example RationalWiki, it states to oppose pseudoscience, that's the main purpose of the website, regardless of politics. I wonder if a guy who has a PHD in psychology actually pronounced a law or a theory like poe's law for political biases. 12:18, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Who wants to live in a place where you wake up in one country but eat your breakfast in another?
Look no further than the Netherlands and Belgium. Literally the weirdest border in Europe. I do not envy anybody in that situation but for said people, they are in the EU so free travel is easy.

It is funny. --Channel 48 EAS (talk) 00:58, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it is. Also, there are a few homes on the US-Canada border between Vermont and Quebec, which of course is more difficult especially with COVID. Also, a library and opera show straddles the border elsewhere in the state, close to I-91, and Minnesota and Manitoba share an airport. Andrew5 (talk) 01:29, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, due to COVID, for a few months back in 2020, travel even in the EU was restricted. Andrew5 (talk) 01:29, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I actually have yet to leave my country, but I plan to go to Montreal in April. Andrew5 (talk) 01:29, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * All I can think of is The Great Wall of America.Probliknaut (talk) 01:46, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Trumps ideal wall?Andrew5 (talk) 02:01, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah sorry don’t mean to be a bummer, is just close to home here. Anywho! Yeah ease of travel has to be cool; I know someone who vacationed in Europe and accidentally rode their bike right into the Czech Republic. Probliknaut (talk) 02:04, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

i do not know why this would be a problem AMassiveGay (talk) 08:32, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I was born in a German village just across the river from France. I went for many bike rides involving a quick crank ferry so we could have yummy French food in a restaurant in France. I was recently offered a job in Luxembourg and I debated whether to live in Belgium, France or Germany as the rent was astronomical in Luxembourg. If I had taken the job I would have probably lived in Belgium as the rent was the cheapest, the train was 15 minutes away and there are a lot of benefits to living in Belgium. Almost half the workers in Luxembourg life in neighbouring countries. Being able to wake up in one country and have breakfast in another country is an amazing thing to be able to do. Not even realising you have crossed a border while taking a train is a positive thing. Dissolving borders is incredible. The EU achievement of Schengen, common market and freedom of movement is one of the most incredible achievements of the 20th century, two of which British voters shat all over during the absofuckinglutely derranged Brexit vote. Shabi  DOO  08:49, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I had to look up what a crank ferry is. That sounds pretty magical, Shabidoo. Probliknaut (talk) 13:48, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It was just for pedestrians and cyclists. And we didn't do the cranking (some guy we paid to take the ferry did). It was ridiculously cheap, I think less than 50 pfennigs/1 franc each (this is some years ago). I would be pretty shocked if the Rhine has any crank ferries left anymore (they would hardly be called safe any more by today's standards). Shabi  DOO  14:21, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Where I am from, you drive across an expanse of desert for maybe 4 hours to pass a state border crossing. Flip a coin to determine if it is manned, and roll a die to see that, if it is manned, if you will be talked to or merely waved forward. Of course, still worth it to eat some good food and exist somewhere else for a while. I can’t speak for the border in Mexico as I have never been, despite it’s relative proximity. Probliknaut (talk) 14:36, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Except for travel to non-Schengen countries in the EU, I never had any form of border guards, being stopped while traveling between EU countries (airports, trains, road) with the single exception of a bus trip between Belgium and France. Wasn't even border people, just French police got on the bus at the first town and was searching for counterfeit money as this was all the rage at the time. Had specialised cute dogs sniffing for it. I am pretty shocked that there are border police between some US states...I thought there was absolute free movement between states. Shabi  DOO
 * By the way, why on Earth haven't you headed to Mexico yet? Do you need a passport to go there? Is it unsafe to travel there? Are there COVID restrictions at the moment? If the answers to these are the right ones and you can...ask everyone you know when the next weekend is that they can go for a quick day trip to Mexico, drive to the nearest mexican town and go have a drink in a bar, walk around, see if there is some event in the town or check on meetup.com or just walk around. Shabi  DOO  15:00, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * never been to wales or scotland. not in any hurry to eitherAMassiveGay (talk) 15:12, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Lots of people around the world live near borders.  Many even live near open borders.  Not too crazy.  I once met a horse wrangler in Montana, who, as a profession, led horse tours along the Canadian border in Glacier National park. He bragged about never leaving the United States in his life.   People are weird.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:06, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Nothing new around the Boundary WatersCardinal Chang (talk) 16:07, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Not in a hurry to visit Scotland? What the Jesus leaping lord fuckery? Shabi DOO  16:15, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I am intrigued by these money-wise dogs. My reason is mostly personal -there simply isn’t any desire on my part, and although I am partially Hispanic I feel no ties. My Spanish is also terrible- and safety. Now obviously I have never been, myself, so I am aware that I am going off of other folk’s experiences, but it is not incredibly safe. Cartels are as rampant as ever (which is not normally an issue right at the border but doesn’t make me comfortable by any means), the police corrupt (my wife’s family has been stopped for no apparent reason and only released after bribing the police with jewelry and sunglasses) and crime in general is on the rise. I’m sure it’s pretty okay in tourist areas, like Rocky Point, but again I’ve just no interest. I already live in an arid place with Mexican food (what is considered “Mexican food” is a debate I could commit to at a later time). Oh and you need a passport but a simplified version that is easy to get is acceptable for travel between Mexico/US/Canada. Probliknaut (talk) 16:36, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Hopefully that doesn’t make me sound ignorant or like a paranoid fearful guy but it is what it is. Probliknaut (talk) 16:45, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't make you sound of ignorant. I don't know what state you're in so I don't know how iffy that region of Mexico is. One of my exes was from Monterey and he told me he was happy to get the fuck out of there. I am sure there are lots of border regions that are safer than many American inner cities though. Some neighbouhoods in Detroit and NYC scared the shit out of me more than any danger zone I've been to on Earth. Having said all of that, language really shouldn't be an issue and people get over their discomfort and culture shock quickly. But there is nothing wrong with being less interested in going one place rather than to another. If you prefer all inclusive organised vacations over adventure travel dont let anyone tell you that is wrong. The single exception to all of this being amassivegay's exceptionally unfathomable lack of a rush to visit Scotland which is flabbergastingly outrageous :) Shabi  DOO  17:26, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * ive been to hadrians wall. both sides, so technically been to scotland. i flew over wales on to dublin (to meet a very pretty malaysian boy, whose friends were all italian, and the only irish person i met the whole weekend was an elderly lady who asked if i wanted ribbed for her pleasure when i was buying condoms at the chemists), and i dont think that counts as a visit. honestly, in the uk theres not a whole lot of reasons to leave london. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:38, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * @Shabidoo I have been to the states of California, Oregon, Washington and New Mexico. I live in Arizona. I assume the eastern states have less of a border concern and are more freely travelled between. My wife and I mostly just travel on a whim, driving the 6-8 hours as needed (only ever went to OR and WA by plane as a child) so not necessarily organized vacations.@AMassiveGay Is there necessarily any border between Scotland and England in that area? The wall itself isn’t any kind of old old border still in affect, is it? Probliknaut (talk) 18:01, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Oh and, what’s the beef with the Netherlands/Belgium border? Probliknaut (talk) 18:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I suppose walking along Hadrians wall is the equivalent of going to Edinburgh's fringe festival, hiking the highlands or visiting the various Isles, and that flying over Wales is pretty much the same as driving along the Welsh coast, visiting its many castles and checking out the Welsh book festival. So you can definitely cross those two places off your list. Shabi  DOO  18:21, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I really enjoyed my time in Washington State Probliknaut, especially visiting Vachon island, the restaurants of Seattle and sailing around the sounds of NE Washington. Gorgeous. Quite a few of my European friends are planning on road-tripping the US from coast to coast. It's becoming a bit of a trend. Certainly one of my most favourite trips ever was to NYC. What a total endless blast! Shabi  DOO  18:25, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I meant that it would be annoying to pay bills and taxes as you might be paying taxes to one country but utility bills to another. Heaven forbid if you have to send a car insurance payment to another country that you are not a citizen of. --Channel 48 EAS (talk) 19:38, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That does sound like a major annoyance. I have no idea and won’t pretend to understand how income and property taxation works in Europe. Probliknaut (talk) 20:22, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

What does Scotland and Wales have to offer that London doesn't have?
Clearly nothing. Shabi DOO  18:35, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * the lake and peak district isnt too different from the highlands, in terms of landscape. ive done plenty of hiking in hills and mountains, its not really what interests me at present. done plenty of weekend city breaks throughout england, and nothing really matches london, its cosmopolitanism, its history, its sheer size. i sill feel excited seeing westminister palace on the news and thinking thats just across the river from me, and it makes me happy hearing big ben chime on a quite night. i like being able to walk around the place and be as camp a christmas, im not even especially camp (my flatmate will beg to differ) and not feel i have to leave that at home - ive only ever felt that comfortable outside of london in brighton. everywhere else just seems a little...provincial. and visiting some place when there is some big festival on doesnt appeal to me, not big on the massive crowds they pull. im sure scotlands lovely and lots to offer, just nothing that is particularly calling out for me to visit.


 * i like the idea of berlin for visit, that seems like a fun place to go. and thailand. i like thai people, have a lot of thai friends. but its all moot. im permanently skint and ive not been on a holiday for years. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Had I cash enough, I'd be in Scotland tomorrow, permanently. Lovely place, lovely people. Scream!! (talk) 20:01, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and as far as I know...there haven't been any yobbish petrol station brawls in Scotland as there have in the greater London area and England. So there is also that. Shabi  DOO  20:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Lewis and Harris is one beautiful island. If you can cope with the wind, Shetland's isles are astounding, and a quick flight away are the Faroe Islands, too many fond memories of abusing Okkara and spoken languages and suffering existential crises level hangovers in the wind and sleet Cardinal Chang (talk) 20:37, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm an American who's camped at Blair Atholl twice, and the accent is sure a change from further south. Plus, the Atholl Highlanders are the only private army left in Europe, the equivalent of Reveille there is Hey Johnnie Cope Are You Waking Yet; hardly something you'd expect some southern fairy or northern monkey to pridefully unleash into the morning sky. It was only this year that I got around to visiting the town of Scotland in my home state for the 3rd time to surpass the number of visits to the old country, it's a pretty appropriate name. (I'm a lifelong New Englander, somehow all us Paddies, Limeys, NEDs (one of them punched me there, bold move for a little shit who was a foot shorter than me), and sheepshaggers get along just fine here) The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 03:46, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * the athol highlanders arnt a private army, they are cosplayers AMassiveGay (talk) 00:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You know it and I know it, but how many people will read past the official title? Besides, since the current duke is some random guy in South Africa, I'm glad they've kept at least something authentic. One of these days I'll visit Athol Massachusetts (it's driving distance for me, but there's no point in going during COVID), I actually got to see L the town added to their post office when the Highlanders came to visit because they somehow managed to steal it. And also, Irn Bru, I'll order it and a bit of haggis once in a while (even if the haggis you can get is more liver-heavy, since the US bans use of sheep lung). The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 02:02, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Scotland also has Hagis to offer... 2A02:1812:2C66:D000:7528:29B8:BD2F:E824 (talk) 12:35, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Oh no
I am not PlanetsForLife on WIkipedia, but am blocked as it. If I keep getting these false socks (Humiebees/Phoner8/Phoner89/Phoyner/CrownAlextoria are also false socks),how will I ever get unblocked (which an ArbCom appeal probably won't happen for several years, and the Wikipedia community will probably decline such appeal for a very long time). Andrew5 (talk) 22:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * . The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 02:24, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * No wiki can keep someone from editing their wiki due to sockpuppet accounts and the ability to change one's IP address.


 * There are multiple ways to change your IP address. You can change your internet provider. You can edit from a nearby library, university or cafe with internet access. You can edit from a friend's house or family member's house. After your next move, you can edit from a new IP address.


 * Paul Simon wrote the song 50 ways to leave your lover. There must be 50 ways to edit a wiki that banned you. SchreiberBicycle (talk) 10:09, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Problem is, Wikipedia knows most of my IPs. I won't list them here of course, but yeah. My only options is if I go to someone's house, and edit on a different phone (CU can scan through phones), or on their computer, and not making it obvious it's me. In the meantime, at, they are missing an EF0 tornado that needs to be added and updated. Tornado information on the event can be found at and should be added. Andrew5 (talk) 13:24, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, newbie troll! It appears that using multiple socks in a shit sockpuppetry manner is what got Andrew5 kicked off of Wikipedia in the first place! There's more to life than just an IP address after all! So, your advice is overall pretty wrong and I recommend that everyone ignore it! Anyways, toodles! PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 13:26, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I would say that, the best advice that could possibly be given here, is to COMPLETELY AVOID ALL BEHAVIOUR that will get you blocked, let alone banned. Shabi  DOO  13:36, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * If only I thought of that 2.5 years ago. Andrew5 (talk) 13:48, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * My block finger is getting itchy. Bongolian (talk) 19:08, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Blocking for what? 06:03, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I feel like it's an immitation of a Wikipedia admin, but it could be something else. Andrew5 (talk) 11:13, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This may be a silly question, but why do you need multiple ip addresses to edit wp?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:29, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * In my case, I edit from multiple IPs because I edit from multiple places. 14:38, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

New news on the scene - PFL submitted an unblock request, which was declined, and now they want to attempt WP:SO. We'll see how that goes. Andrew5 (talk) 22:33, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Account has been globally locked (it's a long diff, but check carefully). Andrew5 (talk) 21:08, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Irony of White Afrikaner Nationalists
Funny how White Afrikaners (targeted at the racist nationalists) will promote hate speech and a race war against non-whites yet the Afrikaner ethnic group owes about 10% of their genome to native African tribes and East Asian people. Then again, lack of education, pseudoscience and pseudohistory are key ingredients in racism. --Channel 48 EAS (talk) 00:04, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm quite sure they know, and don't care. Ethno-supremacy was never about making rational arguments; the arguments were excuses, nothing more.  06:12, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * so rather than wonk around with biology what would the difference be if my great grandfather owned property vs if my great grandfather was property? 192.145.119.67 (talk) 09:04, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It is just the idea that they are related to people that they hate and who they consider inferior. --Channel 48 EAS (talk) 21:08, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Apologies
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drPWwXDiAGk

I'll come up with a username. It's not fair, but sometimes that's fair enough. Really hope I can find a username that doesn't get autobanned. 07:58, 3 October 2021 (UTC)07:58, 3 October 2021 (UTC)07:58, 3 October 2021 (UTC)~ &mdash; Unsigned, by: 172.241.224.17 / talk

NFL Week Four Predictions.
Hello Everyone! Logan here. ready for some sports lunacy? Lets begin: SEP 30, JAX @ CIN (NFL NETWORK): Jacksonville with at least a 30-0 shutout. OCT 3, TEN @ NYJ (CBS): Cmon now, y'all know whos winning this. OCT 3, CAR @ DAL (FOX): Panthers will go 4-0. fuck you Jerry. OCT 3, HOU @ BUF (CBS): Love my Texans and hate facing reality, so i will put my trust in them. 27-13 in houstons favor. What do you think will happen this week? what games will you watch? TheNFLGuy (talk) 20:24, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This should be at the bottom of the saloon.Andrew5 (talk) 00:09, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I am sorry to say I am not a football fan or sports in general but I am 100% down for wings and booze!Probliknaut (talk) 14:11, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure that this is the wrong platform to discuss the No Fun League. -RipCityLiberal (talk) 15:49, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * And if it were, those are freaking terrible predictions. Jacksonville lost by a fieldgoal; the Bills crushed Texas 40-0, and the Panthers also lost going away. UncleKrampus (talk) 22:12, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

About Giuliani
I heard he got banned from Fox News? Why? He's just as bat-shit insane as Tucker Carlson... 2A02:1812:2C66:D000:7528:29B8:BD2F:E824 (talk) 12:37, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * One source says he is not banned, just not relevant. There may also be a wee bit of the Mike Lindell problem where, since one is being sued by voting system companies for saying bullshit about supposed election fraud, one must be careful not to let outspoken promoters of bullshit supposed election fraud on the air. (Lindell ads were off Fox News reportedly for complaining too loudly in this direction, but reportedly his ads are back on since he's whining about "cancel culture", something that absolutely is much more allowed within the GOP whine culture.) PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 17:06, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Giuliani cannot be trusted to not say anything libelous. Carlson is rather accomplished at avoiding libel by being a JAQ off. Bongolian (talk) 17:57, 3 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Donald Trump and Rudy Guiliani planted seeds of doubt among many Republicans/independents about the 2020 election. Lots of election integrity laws have been passed and Trump supporters are being successfully recruited to be precinct officers who will pick poll watchers for the next presidential election. The Republicans are doing state/county election audits and the AZ audit is spawning other state/county audits by Republicans (Texas, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania).  A domino effect is happening. Rudy Gulliani could be resurrected at Fox to gain ratings. Boothe (talk) 18:13, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * So hey plan to rig the next major election? Thanks for the input Ken. 18:22, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * U.S. News and World Report: "A 2019 report by Harvard University's Electoral Integrity Project found that the United States had the second-lowest integrity score among liberal democracies for elections between 2012 and 2018. The country was ranked at No. 57 overall."


 * It's a good thing that America is taking election integrity more seriously now. It should have been done years ago. Graham23 (talk) 19:34, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Tragic. I wonder who could be responsible for that... 21:13, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Workers' wages for a vast swathe of Americans were stagnant for years before Trump. Poor southern border control flooding cheap labor into the US played a part. So did the lack of fair trade with China. The past U.S. presidents and Congresses gave Trump all the ammo he needed to be elected in 2016. Graham23 (talk) 21:35, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Columbia U. Statistician Andrew Gelman said of the PEI Index "[it] all seems like an unstable combination of political ideology, academic self-promotion, credulous journalism, and plain old incompetence." It seems that North Korean elections had a higher index than several EU countries (2014), that is, until the consequent contumely resulted in removal of NK from later annual reports.UncleKrampus (talk) 21:56, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * "Marketing professionals have a saying that "perception is reality". Northwestern University said in 2020 that 38% of Americans lack confidence in election fairness.


 * It's difficult for Biden to govern given that such a large portion of Americans think he didn't win the election.


 * Hillary Clinton paved the way for Trump declaring the election was illegitimate with her Russian collusion causing her to lose the election fantasies (She was a very bad candidate who didn't even go to Michigan during the election). Trump is very into vengeance. Trump claiming the election was rigged claims is partly payback towards the Democrats. The irony is that Hillary paid for the Steele dossier which was Russian propaganda.


 * Time will give a clearer picture of the 2020 U.S. presidential election. We will see what the audits and attorney generals doing further investigations will turn up. Graham23 (talk) 22:16, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Look at it this way young fellow, a much larger proportion of American voters think Trump lost than think he won the 2020 election. In a democracy that's really all that is necessary.UncleKrampus (talk) 22:20, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * "Time will give a clearer picture of the 2020 U.S. presidential election." Literally every audit so far has not only confirmed that Biden won, but that Trump lost by more votes than was previously thought. I really don't understand how you can continue to delude yourself and others. Republican judges and officials, a large number of whom were appointed by Trump, ruled that he lost. Like, are you going to allege that Trump conspired with the GOP to make himself lose the election? I mean, if that's the case why even bother Ken? 22:25, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Rod Liddle reported in a mainstream British news outlet that "So Trump was right: the election was rigged. And our next one will be too".


 * I do know that the American press did not properly cover Biden. For example, the "laptop from hell" of Hunter Biden was not covered properly concerning Biden's corruption. And Big tech put their thumb on the scale too. Graham23 (talk) 22:34, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * So you're just going to pivot when I bring up a point you don't like? Welp, time to ban your accounts again... 22:43, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Squid Game and Meme Culture
I hate that I have become the old man yelling at society, but I'm now a third of the way thru. is still very much on my mind watching this, but looking through social media, Instagram and Tik Tok specifically, you would think this show is a sort of goofy competition show, and not a horrifying critique of capitalism and the struggles of the working class. Though there are some very specific South Korean issues, this show presents a simple analysis if society operated with the same universal rules, but even that illusion is quickly eliminated in the 'special game' they run. Rather than using any sort of analysis to understand the complicated questions raised, the online discourse seems to center around which shapes people would use in honeycombs, or what songs would get people to move in red light - green light. I admit, I am definitely looking at the masks and uniforms for Halloween costumes, but still acknowledging the tragedy these pieces of media present. Is that really way we must understand culture going forward? RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:00, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Have not watched this particular SK series, but 'major plot holes and story arcs not pursued' ('X lost their child at a market years before' - who is not followed up, 'Y buys a very expensive watch (being a failed McGuffin rather than a Chekov's gun) etc) are a major feature of such series. Anna Livia (talk) 19:28, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * "Is that really way we must understand culture going forward?" It's nothing new, the general public often misunderstand critiques of their society, Wall Street wasn't meant to be a promotion of "Greed is Good" but a warning, Lolita is not a fucking love story, and let's not get started on 1984. Cardinal Chang (talk) 20:37, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * not seen the show, but looks very high concept. going only by the episode synopis on wikipedia, and i realise there is probably much detail left out of that so take this with a hefty pinch of salt, but on the face of it there doesnt appear to have much to discuss as a critique of capitalism. wealth disparity, the desperate poor tempted to take incredible risks for amusement of the super rich, seems to me an inevitable in-universe justification for the central premise of 'what if those games you played as kids were life or death?'. only the most desperate would participate in such an event, and gives pathos to the plight of the contestants, compelled by their own financial dire straits rather than coerced by sinister government or organisation as is often the case in similar themed films, though play things of a bored elite itself isnt a new take. it seems to me to be such an extreme and unlikely situation, that anything to be gleaned from that about capitalism is at best going to be the very broadest of points, its just too contrived a situation to hold anything it might say as valid.


 * having established why they would be there, the human drama of the life or death struggle the contestants find themselves in looks to be the meat of the show. who lives or who dies, who you root, who you think deserves what they get is aided by their urgent need for the money, but still only underpins the fact they are desperate. its seems natural to me that discussion online would focus on what they'd do in games a variant of which is played pretty much every in the world by kids if their life suddenly depended on it. its not a particularly deep or revealing debate, but it is one that can be universally had all over the world and through all walks of life. everyone has played these games. undiscovered tribes in rainforests probably have played something similar to at least one the games. inequalities of capitalism are more or less stark in some parts of the world than others, its effects less brutal in places with a better safety net - issues if brought up in the show can easily be ignored as window dressing if they are as keenly felt issues in every locale. the visually striking and surreal setting and costume, the human drama, the horrific games, pulls focus from any social commentary if it isnt obviously the point of the thing. seems to have the feel of a saw type movie where there is some contrived horrific situation that someone finds themselves in and we might ponder what we do in that situation safe in the knowledge we never will be. theres no expectation of a deeper underlying message in those movies, there maybe isnt with this show so no one is looking to deep.


 * i repeat ive never seen the show, and this all assumptions made form the wikipedia article, and social commentary might much more overt and central to the show, making everything above all nonsense. just saying, people not focusing on it might not mean the decline of civilisation. people need escapism. this show just might be watched for that end AMassiveGay (talk) 19:11, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Might have to download it and watch it sometime myself. Time to check out the usual quarters Cardinal Chang (talk) 20:08, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

COVID cases declining
https://news.yahoo.com/pediatric-cases-covid-19-declining-133009133.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall

I cannot wait until this pandemic ends. Maybe, just maybe, we will get out of this mess soon. The COVID pandemic which has been going on for over a year feels like several years. --Channel 48 EAS (talk) 20:23, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The article says it should be approved by Halloween, I hope it is before the American time change (November 7 at 2AM, in case you didn't know). That causes a city like New York to go from a sunrise of 7:32am and a sunset of 5:46pm, to a sunrise of 6:33am and a sunset of 4:45pm. Nonetheless, Halloween is only 27 days, and since the time change is over 33, it seems more realistic. Andrew5 (talk) 20:33, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry to burst your bubble but this is not an indication of nearing any sort of end - daily cases now are several times what hey were in, say, July - eg scroll down a bit here to see a graph that .... well...  graphically illustrates that you're still in it up to your eyeballs - https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/ Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 20:37, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it'll end in five or ten years, the length of most pandemics. The pandemic only began in November 2019, after all. It's not even two years. Andrew5 (talk) 21:04, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Definitely a matter of being an optimist or not. I am unsure of how much we could have anticipated Delta, for instance. I personally don’t make any bets and will assume this will be ongoing for a while. As long as I get to work from home forever! Also I and my Arizona brethren pay no mind to your silly time change. I welcome the wildly varying dawn and dusk!Probliknaut (talk) 02:45, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * According to the Moderna CEO, the pandemic would be over in a year. 06:43, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It's looking less scary here, but I remember last year. The two weeks after Halloween, Thanksgiving, Yuletide, New Year's each were all really bad times. Kntai (talk) 11:10, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, but there was also a severe uptick in March for no reason. Andrew5 (talk) 11:19, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The week after Halloween was the election, was a bad time no matter what. Then a week later, the vaccine was announced.  14:10, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and then a month after that, the vaccines were introduced but you had the, which made it very hard to distribute. Other storms such as the further caused complications. Storms can cause COVID upticks, such as . Andrew5 (talk) 16:35, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Distribution was irrelevant considering that the bottleneck was the production. A factory only producing 100,000 doses being delayed a week means 800,000 being delivered a week later, and wouldn't affect when the general public got the vaccine.  17:04, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, but a storm can also delay production of vaccines, if the plant is in a place due to the winter storm. The December 15-17 one saw 10.5 inches in Manhattan and there were 17.2 in the January 31-February 3 one. Not to mention a ton of other blizzards affecting NY this winter, such as the dropped 4.5-6.5 inches in parts of NYC, and one in mid February as well.Andrew5 (talk) 17:16, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is how finances and the economy works...
Trillion-dollar platinum coin could be minted at the last minute. Err... 2001:8003:DDB1:C600:400E:57F1:81C7:90A (talk) 20:53, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The idea was tossed around already during Obama Administration. when Republicans were being  obstructionists.  20:58, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the goal is to use it as a placeholder until they can get the Republicans to agree to raise the debt ceiling, then the coin is melted when it's no longer needed. There's no intention to actually use it as currency. Plutocow (talk) 21:01, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * We had done something like that in the past 21:19, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * There is a legal limit (increased periodically as a political bargaining chip) to how much debt the federal government can have. But the budget specifies how much money is to be spent, and how income is to be gathered, and this usually runs at a deficit. Faced with these contradictory legal constraints, the executive branch may seem to be in a pickle. However, the US has sovereign control of the US Dollar, and that's the currency used for those troublesome expenses, which means that there is no amount of dollars that it cannot pay. So, if the Legislative branch doesn't get its act together, the Executive branch (specifically the Treasury) can mint money that can be used to pay for stuff without increasing the debt beyond the legal limit. Compared to borrowing money, monetizing the debt encourages economic activity and inflation (both by adding money to the economy). The trillion dollar coin would work in practice by being "deposited" in an account which is then drawn from to pay for things. The physical coin wouldn't change hands. 96.60.168.60 (talk) 12:05, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Can someone please take me out of the vandal bin please?
Its seriously starting to annoy me.
 * Not a valid reason I'm afraid. So please try harder. 23:15, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If you want out, try actually making some constructive edits instead of begging. Plutocow (talk) 23:23, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. I see that in your time here you have made two main space edits (reverted). There are more than enough frivolous comments on talk pages and in the saloon. Show us what you got. No proselytizing, trolling, or gaslighting.UncleKrampus (talk) 23:42, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * What's going on here? BeardOfZeus (talk) 04:59, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * After being told multiple times that we wouldn't take him out of the vandal bin unless he showed that he could be constructive, he tried creating another account to try to get around the vandal bin, resulting in him being whooped with a three week ban. Plutocow (talk) 05:06, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * What was he doing other than creating socks? BeardOfZeus (talk) 05:11, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Trolling, making a couple of unconstructive mainspace edits, and generally being an asshat. Plutocow (talk) 05:14, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * But, we only do it to annoy. Bongolian (talk) 07:18, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If I were you, I would have simply not been put into the vandal bin.Revenant Raven (talk) 20:46, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Facts. Andrew5 (talk) 20:52, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

In any case, I opened a threat at RationalWiki talk:All things in moderation, if anyone wants to participate. Andrew5 (talk) 20:52, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Let's Go Brandon
So... a NASCAR driver named Brandon won a race, and during the interview, the crowd started chanting what appears to be "Fuck Joe Biden", which the reporter tried to claim was "Let's Go Brandon". This is spreading around the rightwing portions of the 'net, and I think "Let's Go Brandon" is going to become another dogwhistle for the anti-Biden folks. 15:09, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Probably. I will note that:
 * A) This is Talladega, Alabama, so pretty much deep in the heart of all things Angry Baby embraces.
 * B) In the same weekend (perhaps as a sign that if there's a Spirit in the Sky, it's one that loves to troll people for the lulz) a black driver won his first NASCAR cup race, only the 2nd top-tier NASCAR victory by a black driver ever. The rain-delayed race took place on Monday, so Reddit-er NASCAR sub folks (being, in general, the more younger-and-a-little-more-left side of the sport fandom) noted that it was rather lucky that Facebook, where the older and more racist side of the fandom hangs out, was down. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 16:13, 6 October 2021 (UTC)