RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive318

Is pot literally the worst?
Kind of angry about something right now. A friend learned the hard way that you can't get a clearance to work with the government in the US if you have ever smoked pot and they find out about it. Having multiple DUIs is fine, having theft in your record is fine, even 1 or 2 assaults can be allowed if you weren't arrested for more than a year, but if you smoke pot. Even. A. Single. Time, then you are disqualified. Some people argue pot is worse than alcohol or tobacco, but does anyone actually argue that even casually smoking a joint is worse than a full fledged DUI or assault? MirrorIrorriM (talk) 15:25, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming your talking about the US government, and aren't they more concerned about you lying about it than actually using it?RipCityLiberal (talk) 15:40, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You are correct. They don't really care if you smoked a joint, but if you say you didn't, that means you're untrustworthy and that's a very bad thing. Cosmikdebris (talk) 15:46, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * (EC)So apparently, the standards they use are still based on this executive order by bill clinton. Substance use is mentioned only in the context of recommending substance abuse treatment programs for rejected candidates.  Trustworthiness is listed as mandatory requirement, suggesting to me that RipCity has it on the nose.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:52, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * He lost his clearance over it specifically because he had smoked in the past 5 years. Had nothing to do with lying about it.  Unless of course he is lying to me, but other people in the government I know say that they have a complete zero tolerance policy against pot specifically.  MirrorIrorriM (talk) 17:06, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd be interested to see where that policy is set. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:08, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * So he had his clearance before, then lost it. That's different, Marijuana is still Schedule-I drug, and using those means the person would be susceptible to black mail. Now is Marijuana (more specifically THC) that bad? Hell no. But until it's rescheduled it's a crime to use, especially if you work for the Gov't.RipCityLiberal (talk) 17:28, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * heheh, gotta love it. The planet is facing nuclear war with Iran and leftwing liberal Democrat communists are worried about marijuana laws. Deja vu 1972 all over again. nobsI'm all yea'res 19:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons
 * Marijuana laws are draconian and based on straight up racism
 * "EvEryTHInG i DiSAgrEE WiTH Is COMmuNiSM" Get a new line.
 * RipCityLiberal (talk) 17:32, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Did you know: Dispensaries of recreational marijuana cannot accept credit card payment, checks, or have bank accounts in the Federal Reserve system? nobsI'm all yea'res 19:15, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I did. Do you know that dispensaries accept US dollars and instead have bank accounts with credit unions where they deposit their profits. Isn't that what you small government people want?RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:37, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The whole system is ripe for tax fraud. nobsI'm all yea'res 13:50, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * So are most things in life if your clever enough.RipCityLiberal (talk) 21:37, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think hypothetical scenarios where nobs is clever are within the realm of realism. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:43, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * He's an Evangelical Christian so he has an incredible example to work with.RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:39, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Rationalwiki policy: Assume No Faith
So I've been kinda thinking on this one. Wikipedia has the 'Assume Good Faith' policy, what if we ripped off and adapted the idea to 'Assume No Faith' on the part of new editors? 18:24, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Assume good faith is still a good standard to follow here. We still get a lot of trolls but it's not bad to assume good faith against more constructive editors. I've come to terms against quite a few users that have gotten defensive because others snarked them and we were able to work a solution that didn't impact the quality of the page. 18:31, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Assuming good faith is not something that Wikipedia pulled out of thin air. It's an implicit part of the social contract. It's implicit in the Golden Rule. Imagine that one assumed no faith (or bad faith) in every social interaction that one has. It turns one into a misanthrope, a paranoid, and it would likely taint the way that other people view oneself. Bongolian (talk) 19:27, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * So the way Conservatives feel about anything they disagree with.RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:36, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This is the opposite of good policy. I'm probably among the first to see bad faith in others, but I try to always have a reason for it that overrides a base assumption of good faith.  Give em enough rope to hang themselves, don't go looking to do a lynching.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:06, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If you meant assume no faith (per religion) then that's a great idea. I assume most edits aren't written through the filters of religious insanity. And it would be a funny policy to have. Except of course the play on words would be lost on many and you can easily imagine how ugly things could get if new users thought it meant open licence to be a dick. Shabi  DOO  22:35, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I can only assume Zero is having a little joke about religious beliefs. That's the only way I can get my head around the suggestion. Good faith in wiki editing means trying to make a page better. Bad faith in wiki editing means trying to make a page worse. No faith in wiki editing would mean editing a page without caring if the changes make the page better or worse. That doesn't make any sense.
 * Assuming good faith is always the best policy on any wiki. The vast majority of bad edits made on RationalWiki are made in good faith, usually out of a misguided attempt to make pages more neutral or more encyclopedic.
 * And users' religious beliefs aren't usually an issue either. Dyed in the wool fundamentalists who believe every word of their holy book is true and anything that contradicts it can be dismissed as an evil lie, I don't think they have much to contribute to RationalWiki (or the world). But most people with religious beliefs aren't like that. People with religious beliefs can, and do, make good quality contributions to RationalWiki. Spud (talk) 09:27, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

But - several definitions of 'faith' are being conflated. There is 'faith' in the sense of religious belief - which may be positive, neutral or negative/destructive, with RW wanting a neutral or minimalist approach ('The X view of, or contribution to, 'this topic' is...', 'My faith makes a positive contribution to my life, and encourages me to be creative/add to the sum of human happiness and benefit). Then there is the faith in other people being reasonable and merely needing to be enlightened as to how the wikiverse in general and RW in particular operate/they are being humorous/are using a second language or are poorly educated etc.

What would a wiki where people operate in bad faith look like - beyond 'a load of playground level insults'? Anna Livia (talk) 11:10, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, come on! You know exactly what it would look like. You can see it for yourself right here every day. Although most bad edits here are done in good faith, we get bad faith editors too. They're called vandals, trolls and spammers. But the idea of a wiki where all the edits are done in bad faith is just too ridiculous to contemplate. Even the most abandoned, vandalized and spam filled wiki occasionally gets people coming along and trying to clean it up. Spud (talk) 11:36, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You could make a case that KiwiFarms, while not exactly a wiki, is made entirely of bad faith posts. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:12, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * KiwiFarms, the place filled with self-loathing hypocrites hellbent on harassing other people and causing them to commit suicide. Fuck them. — Oxyaena Harass  18:53, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

No more craving?
https://tricycle.org/magazine/end-suffering/

It just sounds like an exaggeration of life. I mean yeah we suffer and change but plenty lead happy lives despite that right?Machina (talk) 00:14, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Right.


 * Uhhhg, crap, I care too much about you to just Betteridge you. Can I turn the epistemological approach back at you?  It is good poetry by the way, I like what he wrote there.


 * What if we say this is correct, that letting go of everything is the correct approach to ending suffering? I have complaints with that, what are yours? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:26, 20 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I just get the sense that suicide would be an easier option if your goal is to not suffer anymore. I mean granted there is no rule or law about HOW one has to live their life, but to me seeking this option just feels......off for some reason. Like I get that I might be at peace yes, yet...I don't know about it. It was similar to what I said in a other post about that guy saying "you aren't happy because you don't want to be". But that's not it. This is similar to the argument that if you could be hooked to a machine and be permanently happy, would you do so? I personally would say no. Because even though I suffer and such it still makes for an interesting life. I know they argue that most of our suffering comes from within us and not outside (since not everyone responds to the same thing in a similar way), but I don't think that means that we CHOOSE to suffer, I think it's more complex than that.Machina (talk) 18:15, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

UY Scuti
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPtqmyUGPzw This is fucking insane, and to think there could be even larger stars out there.... Simply amazing. — Oxyaena Harass  10:22, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Seen through a telescope, looks like a faint, harmless, star. Note also that the Gaia mission gives it a lower distance, thus being smaller (almost half as large). Damn ESA. Panzerfaust (talk) 22:36, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Spud has started his first RW French translation
A few days ago, I asked you if I should translate the Halloween page into French or Spanish first. The result was an absolute landslide victory for French, winning by an amazing one vote to zero. Thank you for making that decision for me. So I started the draft of the French translation today. Hopefully, I will have translated the page into both French and Spanish by the start of October. Spud (talk) 11:41, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I thought either would be interesting, so it was hard for me to decide. I don't know what everyone else's excuse was. 12:34, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah sorry about that, I got distracted over the number of languages you know and never voted. You corrected a typo I made in Danish but I'm guessing that was from a Google search, because ingen søreme taler dansk, for fanden nobody speaks it. French works, anyway. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 17:12, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I corrected a typo you made in Danish? Well, maybe if you made a mistake in writing the original title of one of Hans Christian Andersen's stories. I might have spotted that. But that's an edit I think I'd remember making. Maybe I edited a page with some Danish text on it, accidentally struck my keyboard and by coincidence that resulted in a typo in a language I don't speak getting corrected. I think the most likely explanation is that it wasn't me. It must have been someone else. Spud (talk) 03:00, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Could be. If I remember correctly, there were 2 editors active on that page around the same time. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 03:41, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Enoch vs Enoch.
Recently a driveby editor made several edits to our article the Books of Enoch. In these edits they cited this website. Now, Because the quoted sections were bugging me I went and looked them up and compared them to a (translated) version of the Book of Enoch that Wikipedia recommends (R. H. Charles 1917 translation). Now, compare these secions Enoch, chapter 81 verse 8 that Jaded cited. vs chapter 85, verses 7 to 9 in Wikipedia's version. Note the differences. As a result of these discrepancies and the fact that the version cited by Jaded turns up as a top search result, I wish to blacklist reluctant-messenger.com as inaccurate and potentially intentionally misleading. What say ye Comrades? 14:43, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It does seem to be... different. By about fifty characters and a lot of detail.  Kencolt (talk) 18:38, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Some thoughts on the new article I made- Cambridge Theological Seminary
It is just a start so far. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 16:56, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You really don't like this... place? Is it a place?  Does it exist as a physical location? Kencolt (talk) 18:38, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Visit the website. There is no campus or faculty. The website is poorly put together. I would rather get a degree from Pensacola Christian College. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:50, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * More good information about the diploma mill. The name alone is a clue -- close, but not quite the same as the legitimate Cambridge Theological Federation (theological colleges that are validated or taught on behalf of the University of Cambridge in the UK) or the Covenant Theological Seminary (the American Presbyterian church's college network). It's even easier to tell by the web site. If your theology is ranting about RINO queens and the "Amazing Wikipedia Bias TOWARD SEXUAL EXPOSURE TO CHILDREN" or something, all in glorious poorly put together HTML 1.0, then this is the diploma mill scam for you.
 * At least with Pensacola Christian College, many faculty have actual credentials plus there is actual campus. At least there is some credibility to their degrees. Not saying much though. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:18, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Autobark
For a moment I read "autoblock" as "autobark." Considering the quality of trolls we get, it's rather fitting, don't you think? — Oxyaena Harass  18:45, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, what's up with that? Are they all Mikemikev and that CP loser? Tinribmancer (talk) 22:37, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * There's also Elvis is King, Logicnsuch, and TDM2, altho Nick hasn't appeared in ages. — Oxyaena Harass  22:38, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * And I read this heading as Autobahn and thought this was going to be about the joys of driving fast in Germany. Spud (talk) 02:51, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. — Oxyaena Harass  03:28, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Communism
Is there any way it could work, and a compelling reason for why it should? The world seems to be going to shit right now with the climate and accumilation of waste, and I don't see how an unplanned economy can do much good, just a bunch of cooperations with each of their own conflicting interests. Could fully automated gay space communism work? ཨོཾ་མ་ཎི་པདྨེ་ཧཱུྃ (talk) 00:06, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If we're gonna deal in such abstractions, you're gonna have to define "work". ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 03:54, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I mean, it's not like there's a whole fuck ton of ideas between "let corporations do whatever" and "let the state run everything to a ridiculously unrealistic degree..." 04:06, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Work as in fix our current problems such as poverty, starvation, and the climate crisis, while also not turning into a nightmare void of any freedom. ཨོཾ་མ་ཎི་པདྨེ་ཧཱུྃ (talk) 04:20, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * (edited to avoid bum conclusions): If you stick to Marxism as defined/discussed in Marx's texts...I'd say the answer is no, it won't work, a state will never arrive at Marx's theorized workers paradise. Humanity would have to be permanently drugged or genetically altered in order for that to "work". If you are referring to Marxist-Lenninism or Maoism, well, there's ample examples of these carried out or still in practice. You can review the history books and decide for yourself if they ever "worked". If you say yes...then we'll have an interesting conversation.
 * But if you are just referring to some (and only some) of the general principles of Marxist ideology, then yes. Those principles that have been integrated with democratic-capitalist states have managed to achieve many of the goals of Marxism (though most certainly not all of them) without the autocratic horror fest that comes with violent revolution, a period of dictatorial transition (which never ends) and the lack of options to overthrow a bad government. Of course, very key principles have not been included in mixed systems like collectivization (there are a few rare collectives in some countries for example Milk in parts of Canada), revolution (all of these countries were democratic before they became mixed), tyrranical transition phase (mixed systems cannot be enforced on people) or radical redistribution or a planned economy (though some elements are certainly planned). They're known by many names but I prefer "mixed systems" as they most certainly are a mix of socialist ideals and democratic-capitalism. The best models of this are EU, Switzerland, Norway, Iceland, Canada, NZ, Japan, S. Korea and Taiwan.
 * Notably absent in the list is the United States...which could maybe almost be called a mixed system if you really stretch the limits of its definition (though some states approximate it like Vermont and Massachusetts). The pathological and neurotic fear of "big government" means a mixed system in the US is a long ways away. Have they been successful? Well if you compare the standard of living and the level of misery/poverty amongst the average citizen in the USA with that of the Netherlands or Canada...and you'll observe a noticeable disparity. I'd rather be in a working class household in Ireland than in Indiana. Is there room for improvement? A lot. Shabi  DOO  04:51, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If you stick to Marx's texts then no, a state will never arrive at a workers paradise. What Marxist text has such a pessimistic conclusion? Also how good are the countries you've named doing at eliminating waste?ཨོཾ་མ་ཎི་པདྨེ་ཧཱུྃ (talk) 05:56, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * BobRoss Marx never said his workers paradise wouldn't arrive. He said it would. I say it's impossible. That is unless we permanently drug human kind or genetically alter them. If you can think of an example where this workers paradise has arrived then great...I was wrong. Which country was that? If you think there is some mechanism that we can use to steer human nature into actually following through with Marx's plan successfully without a disproportionately large horror fest and arrive at a workers paradise (without drugs or genetically altering humans) then I'd love to hear it. It's always been the case that "things just weren't done in the right way". As for waste disposal...that just might fall under the category of "Is there room for improvement? A lot". Is America a bad country because it isn't really a mixed-system? No...but if I were working class I'd most certainly take my chances in Copenhagen than in Philadelphia. Any other conclusions you draw from that are your own. Shabi  DOO  06:08, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * As E.O. Wilson said, "Great idea, wrong species." CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 14:18, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Well we need a solution quickly, I mean the world's rainforests are disappearing at a rate of 6000 acres every hour, and the United States alone racks up 230 million tons of "trash" per day. I don't see a bright future if we continue like this, and many Americans are dead set against a mixed system. ཨོཾ་མ་ཎི་པདྨེ་ཧཱུྃ (talk) 17:31, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree many things desperately need to be done, but communism also has an abysmal record for the environment (google "Gerd Ludwig"). China is a little different in that their environmental record until recently was horrible but, being authoritarian, they have been able to force useful changes quickly (e.g. switch from coal to nuclear). But just "being communist" does not lead to environmentalism. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 17:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by communism? Karl Marx's ideas, or the current rabid right's definition as anything to the left of Il Duce?Aloysius the Gaul 22:20, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Considering that there is no real definition of communism, probably not. As for China, the only reason it seems to work is that there is some private ownership of business and land. Same with Cuba and Vietnam. North Korea is akin to a cult and everyone obey's their government. As pretty much pointed out already, depends on which version. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:31, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Article for the 2020 Election created
Created an article for the 2020 U.S. presidential election... Got a tad sarcastic, but screw it. If someone can think of a better opening quote, go for it. I just put that there because it was the only actually decent-ish quote that came to mind. Also, I don't know if we need to protect that article (like the Salon and WIGO pages are).--NavigatorBR(Talk) - 06:53, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Board of trustees election
Campaigning is now open at RationalWiki:2019 board of trustees election/Campaigning. >_> 12:18, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Trump's border camps.
Firstly, fuck you all for making me defend Trump. Secondly, are people being systematically killed or are they simply being incarcerated under inhumane conditions? If it's the latter then the camps are interment camps, which is not the same as fucking concentration camps. Present your case below. 16:06, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't make you defend Trump. You can hate on him as much as you like. Tinribmancer (talk) 16:36, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You are perhaps confusing Nazi death camps with concentration camps? Concentration camps predate and are not identical with death camps, and are anywhere groups of people with common characteristics, including refugees, are forcibly interred with poor conditions, usually without trial. They were first used by the British against Boers in South Africa. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 16:50, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm kinda confused how this is a common issue since death camp has the word death in it so you'd think it would be hard to mix up Vorarchivist (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * In the common lexicon, "death camp" is interchangeable with "concentration camp" (thanks Nazis, this is all your fault). So when people call the boarder camps concentration camps they are (intentionally or unintentionally) invoking the specter of the holocaust. This is kind of a problem, given that the camps aren't death camps (yet). 17:09, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * maybe where you live but where I live in canada we were taught the difference (as well as calling the japanese-american concentration camps what they are) Vorarchivist (talk) 17:24, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * From what I've seen, the people calling the border camps "concentration camps" also make sure to stress that they do not mean "death camps". 20:19, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I see. 20:32, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * From what I've seen, that's only once they backtrack after getting flak for making sketchy Holocaust analogies. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:D52E:397D:C058:1BEE (talk) 12:19, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * "where they are being brutalized with dehumanizing conditions and dying." certainly doesn't sound like AOC intends to distinguish them from death camps. "This is not hyperbole" she says, linking to an Esquire article that predictably fails to substantiate her hyperbole, but instead argues for a broad interpretation of "concentration camp." In other words, politicians are gonna politician. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:D52E:397D:C058:1BEE (talk) 12:31, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Conditions at the migrant camps are reported by many sources to be unacceptable (and probably inhumane). It doesn't seem like there's anything wrong she said in that regard. The main thing "wrong" with her statement is that "concentration camps" are so linked with Nazi Germany that practically everyone (including the BoN) are jumping to the conclusion that she is referencing the Holocaust. (Liberal oriented "comment sections" and social media peanut galleries are doing the same thing, so don't feel too bad, BoN. :) ) As far as I know there's nothing comparable going on to the Final Solution of Nazi Germany so far (hence why some emphasize "death camps" for the Nazi variety to make a distinction). But if you view the WWII Japanese internment as a concentration camp, you're going to see this one as one as well. Under a less expansive definition of the term, the US internment camps don't qualify, but it is still worth keeping in mind that even under stricter definitions, Nazi concentration camps aren't the only ones that have existed. Soundwave106 (talk) 18:22, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Stop. You have one politician saying something. One. One is the loneliest number not necessarily a widespread opinion. 13:15, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * My annoyance was over perception rather than intent, because Americans are idiots half the time. 13:23, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * By definition, they are concentration camps. Groups of people are being concentrated in facilities based on their status. No one is saying these are death camps, and although there are records of ICE and CBP acting like borderline SS is rounding people up based solely on their race/ethnicity (even though they are American citizens or green card holders) we aren't there yet. I would also say concentration camp is apt because of the conditions, especially the evidence of sub-par cleanliness and access to water. Lice is rampant in these camps, which carries Typhus. Among the most famous people to die in Nazi controlled concentration camps was Anne Frank, who died of Typhus. Arguing over these semantics though on it's face, is stupid. History will determine whether they were concentration camps, the problem is we are holding people under inhumane conditions because the President and his administration are a bunch of xenophobic racists who want to eliminate all immigration and refugee resettlement.RipCityLiberal (talk) 18:23, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Literal definition of concentration camp. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 03:06, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * GC, how many years was it between the first concentration camp and the first death camp in Germany? How long did they do showwy PR displays about how nice conditions were while every impartial observer who got access reported terrible inhumane conditions?  How many times do they need to waive basic rights like a fair trial before it's not about "enforcing the law"?  How many citizens do they need to arrest for happening to speak spanish before it's clear it's not about legal status?  How many people need to die in custody?  How bad does the typhus epidemic need to be before you accept that you're talking about things straight out of anne frank?
 * In short, do you even have a conscience anymore? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 03:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hard agree ⏣sapient_cogbag⏣ talk  19:18, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

The fuck is going on with the Smash community
Apologies to those here who are not exactly quote unquote "gamers", but to those who are I'd like to ask what exactly is going on with the Smash community as of late. The most I can glean is that somebody was bullied out of the competitive scene but then this person is actually racist? It's all very confusing.

Also, sorry for my extended period of inactivity. Life's been hella stressful 18:24, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, don't worry about being inactive. I regularly disappear for long stretches of time without being missed. 20:17, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * What is 'Smash'? Something to do with potatoes? Anna Livia (talk) 22:17, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 22:25, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

So nothing to do with alien robots then. Anna Livia (talk) 16:14, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Well R.O.B. is playable, though not an alien, and some people think Samus is a robot... also I guess Ridley is some alien dragons, and some stages do take place on sci fi alien planets. 17:09, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * A reference to these. Anna Livia (talk) 15:51, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Because Gamers. — Oxyaena Harass  04:53, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The Smash community can bring out the worst in Nintendo fans though the Legend of Zelda community asks them to hold their beer. The Smash community has been ungrateful and demanding to Sakurai, a lead producer for Super Smash Bros. (A huuuuuge game) even when he was working with a pretty serious hand injury. 06:51, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Gamer culture in general can be pretty demanding, as can the game companies themselves. Still, it is odd that they ignoring an injury that directly hinders a developer's ability to work. 12:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I watched the trailer for SSB. Wow. I think it is specifically designed to murder epileptics. Is it any fun to actually play. Shabi  DOO  12:27, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The first one was, but it's gradually spun out of control from "frenetic, silly 4 player fighting game" to "showcase for crossover fan-fiction combined with a horrible blend of the same silly feel and tournament game trying to take itself seriously" into a result that I'd describe as a hot mess. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:41, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Meh, personally I think it's fun, but regardless, this still doesn't really answer my question about what the hell all this recent racism and bullying shit is about. 15:20, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Pay no attention to ikanreed. It's extremely fun and filled to the chock with content. It's not that much of "tournament game trying to take itself seriously". A large portion of the fanbase do want it to play like the second game (which is only accidentally got a competitive following due to some unforseen physics exploits). Most other fighting games these days are pretty pared down with content, casting even some veterans as paid dlc. You have tons of fighters to toy with, tons of stages with all sorts of variety you won't find in most traditional fighters, many items (mileage may vary), and many special modes and rules you can change. It's not a traditional figther, relying more on platformer elements, but it's easy to learn, difficult to master. Hard not to recommend, though it's best with friends and willing siblings. I can't say the racism thing, which I don't know of, is really unique to the community. About the injury, well, yeah, that happened, and people are sometimes attacking Sakurai's competence because he and his team put in characters they don't like or leave out characters they like. 17:07, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It's my understanding that Nintendo tries to stay away from competitive or professional gaming in their mechanics. Of course it's going to create extra stress to try and be a top player in a fighting game that was not designed to be balanced.  When I go online, it's Lucas only, since I mained Ness up to Brawl.  When I played Dragon Ball Fighter Z, I went Yamcha, Piccolo, Krillin.  My friends would still have to sweat out every fight, but those were my guys.  When I played Marvel vs Capcom 2 online, I went with Dhalsim, Zangief, and M Bison as my main, you can't convince me not getting my ass kicked online in a fighting game is better than getting a win with your favorites. Street Fighter 2, Dee Jay is my guy.  Put a million characters in, everyone is going to use the same tier and the same broken mechanics.  Get used to eating those hits with a low tier, you might meta-strat out of it.  But for me, playing these games is for my own satisfaction, not to prove anything to the people I fight against or to make money. So, you know, of course I love lower tiers.  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:29, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I just stick with my favorites, stay offline, and don't play competitive. I never have fun because everyone wants to play on like 3 stock and on Battlefield or Final Destination or other tourney legal stages. I chill and just defeat the CPU over and over on long timed matches with explosives, because that's fun for me. 19:30, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I absolutely agree with that, as far as Smash is concerned. I'm not 5 years old, why are we playing like it's a tournament that we'll never play in?  Personally, I dislike items, but I don't throw fits about Smash parameters when I lose.  And I don't think I'd be spending my time well by practicing frame rates over just duking it out with everyone I know for fun.  I did spent a lot of time as Princess Zelda in Melee, didn't like Sheik, glad they split them.  As for playing online, it's great when you can spot a kindred spirit online and they spot you back, and instead of going for the nastiest edge-camping kill you have down, you give each other space.  I play casually within most rank systems for fighting games.  I like rank-based matchmaking because it keeps me from being randomly on top of somebody who doesn't know what they are doing and also randomly outmatched by a person who is way better than me and is playing casual for no reason other than to beat up on their frustrations. But even from my limited time on Samurai Shodown, for $30k, I know enough to know you never, ever give Haohmaru space.  Not ever.  He hits too hard, and I don't enjoy winning with him or losing against him.  I don't watch people play games often, but this one made me groan. I dislike Haohmaru and Charlotte both, I dislike showing off and shit-talking.  And at the end they laugh and shake hands.  And the prize is $30k.  I think, in the end, I'm supposed to be OK with what I've seen here?  I'll never make that money in a day, I'm lucky I bust ass and make above that a year, but I also don't play those games as if I wanted to make that money.
 * I don't like to play games with assholes. I like to play games, and I have some friends that I won't play with in FPS or team sports games because part of their game is to shit-talk.  They are better at the games than me, and they wanted me on their team.  I backed out because even though I like those guys, their shit talk makes me want them to lose.  How do I move forward as a teammate when my teammates shout about rape or telling the other team to kill themselves?  If talking shit when you're down is being a baby, talking shit while you're up is being a hyper-baby.  I like games, I do not like the competitive gaming community, and I do not play games to babysit.  I left a casual Rocket League match with a friend whose diamond ranked friend posted EZ when we went up 5 to 0.  Great plays, fun to pull off.  Just, no thanks, I'm not on that team.  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:26, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Buddhism and suicide
https://www.andrewholecek.com/suicide-from-a-buddhist-perspective/

So I decided to see what Buddhism has to say about this grim matter and the response was more useless than what I expected it to be.Machina (talk) 22:35, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If you're depressed or need to talk to someone, please call a hotline in your country (not sure where you are). CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 23:04, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Not really, it's just that I wanted to know what the thought about the matter since they mention detachment and all that.Machina (talk) 23:20, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Self immolation (the term in English didn't take on the specific connotation of fire until the Life magazine picture) has a long and ugly history with Buddhism. The current Dalai Lama has spoken out against it, while acknowledging he's in no position to prevent it. Even the non-Buddhists who were there on that day in Vietnam were a lot less persuaded, the photographer himself said it was a blatant attention-seeking stunt. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい ) 05:53, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * As clearly stated above, there's this dirty truth about suicide that people who don't live with chronic depression or anixiety don't know how to talk about, and how would they? All those people who don't get it, they are people who also do not respect suicide as a means of communication.  To most people, it's as offensive as hanging up in the middle of a phone call.  They might want to call you back or be offended or terrified by ending a call, but that's about as far as it gets for a majority of people.  Making your point by breaking your phone is not going to be effective.  If you care about those people more than they care about you, you have to wait it out, you have to keep trying to champion your point as a living breathing human.  Self-immolation is a battle-cry that will be totally wasted on everyone you want to hear it, no matter how important the message.
 * The dirty truth about suicide is it isn't unforgivable, it isn't always without reason or even merit. It's that it is an entirely ineffective means of communication to anyone who has never honestly considered it, and your death will never speak your truth to those people, no matter how violent you make it.  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:27, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * @the blade - 'blatant attention seeking stunt' wasn't that the point though? drawing attention to his cause? that seems to be the purpose of other acts of immolation and its not limited to Buddhists. its been employed by Christians, hindus, muslims, Europeans, north americans, south americans, Asians, and africans, as political protest against a whole range of issues. not so long ago a guy immolated his self in Tunisia sparking revolution. as protests go, its an eye catching one and very much the point. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:17, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * as for the linked article, what problem does the op have with it? if you cut through all the spiritual stuff it just says its not advised and you should seek help if you need it. whats the problem with that? AMassiveGay (talk) 11:33, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was exactly the point. I suppose I should have been clearer; the photographer said he found it somewhat less moving because it was fairly clearly contrived, but people who weren't there and the people on whose behalf he was protesting obviously found it resonated much more with them. It's existed since before then (even in Vietnam it went back to the 1800s), but the iconic photograph helped popularize it as a method of protest, elsewhere too but especially among Buddhists. As mentioned before, it's very widespread in Tibet. The Tunisian guy, anyway, was by all accounts more spontaneous. Either way, though, it's sure a hideous way to go no matter what. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい ) 03:35, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * its not on my to do list. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:03, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * my point was self immolation is not a uniquely buddhist thing. its something that has occurred for centuries in many many cultures. jauhar and sati were/are a hindu affair, with sati still sporadically occurring. and if we ignore the association with fire, its not wholly different from other forms of martyrdom and self sacrifice, which is a feature in every culture in the history of the world. the only difference is a Vietnamese monk was caught on camera in the process. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:39, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I see. Makes sense. And yeah, no matter what the specifics it's hard for me to imagine ever even thinking it's a good idea. The Blade of the Northern Lights (<font face="MS Mincho" color="black">話して下さい ) 15:14, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I can get how people can psyche themselves up to do it, through rage, depression, or what ever, desperate people do desperate things, with the right frame of mind its probably not too great a thing to light a match or spark a lighter. it only takes an instant, like ripping off a plaster. but once your ablaze what must go through your mind? regret? some sort of satisfaction? triumph even? can you even think or is searing pain your entire world at that point. many of us probably tell ourselves that we would, for the right cause, or loved ones maybe, lay down there lives for a greater good, safe in the knowledge they'll probably never have to, but I reckon their are few who can even kid themselves that they'd burn themselves alive, even if they knew it would achieve something great. as a protest i'd think id rather just chain myself to some railings. weather permitting. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:15, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you guys cleared this up. I still see suicide as a desperate form of communication, and I agree that publicizing it as a win can encourage the act to people who don't actually know what they are doing.  It's such an extremely delicate subject, and I am in awe of you two discussing it with delicacy, consideration, and most importantly sympathy. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:17, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Conservative Bible Translation Project: How the translations would be done
How it would be done- Google Translate. For the butchered words, they would switch things around to fit what they say. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:56, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The King James Version is so perfect, it should be used for all machine translations, including back into the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, which are not as great as the KJV. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 03:57, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't bash Google Translate, machines are smarter than Andrew Schlafly any day. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  08:45, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It's amazing how thoroughly Conservapedia has passed into history here. Avida Dollarsher again 11:19, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Anyone want to work on creating Conservepedia, a satire of Conservapedia with right-wing Evangelical articles on jam? CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 14:38, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Considering not one of those pundits has any knowledge of Greek or Hebrew so even with Google Translate, they would not get very far. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 15:32, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * A case of 'this? Anna Livia (talk) 16:35, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Okay. I'm really not sure whose side I should be on here...
Arkansas is under a lawsuit about calling meat and not-meat not meat. Is it proper to call a veggie burger a burger? The ACLU thinks so, a legislator doesn't...[]
 * They(being republicans) were emboldened by some Obama-era basically sound FDA decisions like "You can't call it egg nog if it's not made mostly of egg, cream, and sugar, that's decietful" to bend over backwards and demand relabeling of things everyone understood to not be made of X from broadcasting their similarity to X in their name. The dairy council thinks they can sell better competing against "almond drink" as opposed to "almond milk".
 * Here's your litmus test for if hyper-strict food naming is intellectually honest. If they ever go after "cheese product" or "cheez flavor" labeling, then you can tell they actually mean "all names have to be accurate".  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:27, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I mean hell "burger" means "from the city", ban all hamburgers made outside Hamburg. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:28, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't let the EU hear you! Féinléiriú (talk) 20:44, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * In most of the world a hamburger is anything between 2 halves of a bun, rather than specifically ground beef - so chicken burgers, veggie-burgers, "not-meat" burgers are all fine. Only the US has this thing about beef being burgers and everything else being sandwiches..... everywhere else sandwiches are anything between slices of bread.Aloysius the Gaul 21:28, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You can has cheezburger.
 * Which was the Yes (Prime) Minister sausage episode? Anna Livia (talk) 22:15, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You have a choice - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzeDZtx3wUw or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJnA7ft8X0w Aloysius the Gaul 22:46, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * And what was described in that episode was... something other than sausage. Go, Eurozone. Kencolt (talk) 05:02, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * "Cheese Product" is kind of deceitful. "Cheez Flavor," however, seems like a reasonable way to advertise something that tastes kind of cheesy but isn't. Pyro (talk) 23:52, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't wish to have politicians or corporation control any part of our language or vocabulary. Whether a dictionary is prescriptive or descriptive is an unresolvable issue; there's an argument for both sides. Prescriptions tell us how to speak and write so that most people can understand us; descriptions tell us what others' casual or regional speech means. However, there is no valid argument for governments and corporations telling us how to use our language. Tom Sharp 03:46, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

My current series of projects here- new fundie school articles
Namely substandard schools but not limited to schools who teach alternative medicine/woo. The fundie schools that teach alternative medicine seem to be the most interesting. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:38, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

CMV: Reaganism is more fascistic than Trumpism
The essence of Fascism is a frenzied, well-to-do, hysterically reactionary middle class working together with the super-rich to enforce an authoritarian agenda of state terror against poor people and political radical seen as supporting the poor. Fascism sometimes uses "anti-elite" rhetoric but just against those elites seen as "coddling" the "undeserving poor", such as judges who are "soft on crime". Fascism is often racist as well, although "Latin" fascists like Franco and Pinochet were far more concerned with class and only subtly racist. And racists are not necessarily fascist, some are economically leftwing.

Reaganism was a racist, classist, revolt of the middle-class and rich against welfare queens and Willie Horton, against the "coddling" of the USSR by "decadent pinko liberals" like Jimmy Carter, against minorities and the poor generally. The anti-Communist, anti-poor, law-and-order rhetoric was basically Hitler without the anti-semitism, with the only difference being Reagan was not successful in destroying bourgeois democracy totally and instituting total fascism - just eroding it. It was overwhelmingly the middle and upper classes who supported Reagan - as they supported Hitler - while minorities and poor whites were the electoral and popular resistance to it. Reagan and H.W. Bush won overwhelmingly in affluent suburbs - suburbia is essentially fascism personified - while the leftist poor in places like McDowell County, WV rejected them by a huge margin. The suburbs didn't become competitive for Democrats until 1996, when Clinton embraced fascistic policies like the 1994 crime bill and "Arbeit Macht Frei" welfare reform to appeal to the middle class.

Trumpism, by contrast, includes a strong working-class, pseudo-populist, pseudo-left element - although Trump's policies in office have been far more Reaganite neocon-fascist than candidate Trump was. The fact that Trump did historically badly in suburbs while winning leftist Appalachia overwhelmingly shows that Trumpism isn't as purely fascist as Reaganism was. It is certainly racist, but the Trump coalition includes both middle-class suburban racists who are also fascist, but also poor racists who oppose fascism and suffered from Reaganite policies. Furthermore Trump's policies toward Russia are less fascistic than those of many Democrats who claim to be fighting fascism.TPVL (talk) 00:44, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I personally would argue that neither Trump nor Reagan completely fit the word "fascist" 100%. Reagan had a few characteristics as you note, but Trump rings more of the bells of the "14 common features of fascism" proposed by Umberto Eco to me. Trump projects far more "dumb machismo" than I ever remember Reagan doing, appeals more to white identity politics, and goes far more into the newspeak angle. The rejection of globalism is a huge difference -- Reagan embraced globalism, Trump really doesn't. (The rejection of globalism and cosmopolitan business kind of mirrors the typical fascist hatred of bourgeois capitalism.) There the comparison ends. Neither of them are authoritarians, although one wonders if Trump would embrace authoritarianism if he could. Neither of them are also full-on state capitalists -- although we have some big issues with monopoly power these days, we're nowhere as bad as true state capitalism elsewhere. I don't know if Reagan was legitimately racist in private, considering that throwing code word bones for the South was a political strategy, what he said in public might not indicate much. The indications are that Trump is pretty racist even in private. But as bad as Trump's racism is, I don't think it compares to the eugenics-fed racism of fascism.
 * In a recent paper on Hitler voting demographics, there is an argument that Hitler's voting coalition had a fair share of lower income people, especially small scale business owners, agricultural and peasant workers. Yes, the upper class also voted for Hitler. But it does appear that other more tribal factors mattered more than income, to a point at least. (The unemployed factory workers voted Communist.) Soundwave106 (talk) 01:45, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The "strong working-class, pseudo-populist, pseudo-left element" of Trumpism is almost exactly what a few former European fascist dictators used to get into power too... the most extreme originall fancied themselves as "socialists" after all!!  so I'd say you've got this the wrong way around.Aloysius the Gaul 02:07, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree with TVPL's definition of fascist. You make it sound like fascist and capitalist are the same thing. A real fascist is a member of a hate group, hyper racist, hyper nationalist, populist, authoritarian, and some weird flavour of aesthetic military philosophy.


 * It is easy to say Trump is authoritarian. He would fully go behind a strong powerful charismatic leader. You don't need to be an authoritarian dictator to be authoritarian. This is particularly obvious given the extreme lengths the trump administration is going to to try and erode the checks against executive power overreach in the US. Tulpa001 (talk) 05:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I like the phrase "Crypto-Fascist". 45 definitely wishes he was a dictator, he wishes he could kill and imprison his rivals, and he could have complete control of the economic levers. Though he is a racist, racism isn't necessary to Fascism, more Nationalist sentiment that a particular group represents the true in group. This manifested itself in explicit racism under the Third Reich and late for Mussolini in Italy. Also true Fascism attacks capitalism and communism, while stealing aspects of both. --RipCityLiberal (talk) 18:49, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Everything is transphobic
I've been reading this wiki for years and have appreciated that in the past it was able to criticize things and people in a rational manner. But I have become very disappointed at how many articles fixate over transphobia. Most of the time it's not even actual transphobia, it's just that someone said something outside of established doctrine that hurt the feelings of a delicate transgender laydee. Call me a concern troll, ban me. I just hope there's reasonable people deep down that think this is ridiculous too. -71.61.132.17 (talk) 06:00, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Not so long ago, there were people defending racist jokes by saying, "it's only a joke. Only a few black people were upset. A lot of black people thought it was funny. I can't understand why anybody's offended by it." Now you're doing the same thing. If you think it's OK to make fun of trans people just for being trans, you're not being reasonable, you're not being rational. You're on the wrong side of history. Spud (talk) 08:35, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It's funny how opponents of trans rights always start about talking about rationality and being reasonable and respecting opponents in the debate, and always end by using phrases like "delicate transgender laydee". It's almost as if they don't really want a respectful debate, they just want to call people names and start a fight. --Annanoon (talk) 09:28, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  12:08, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Troll though they may be, it's worth taking a moment to note, any website that peddles hateful stereotypes is indeed bigotted, any politician who calls for banning certain people from public service is a piece of shit, and Joe Rogan is dumb and boring. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:27, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I wish I didn't know who Joe Rogan was: there's little reason anyone should. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 15:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * And yet, he's the host of what is quite possibly the number one most listened to podcast in the world. I'm don't want to gonna get into the "are shitty shock jocks who mistake actual bigotry for edginess bigoted themselves" hairball, but he is dumb and boring.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:37, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know who Joe Rogan is. :| 17:08, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I know of him mainly as the host of a reality contest show that brought a concept explored in a 1990 Dave Barry column to life. But that was then. He apparently has a top rated podcast these days, that while once perhaps respectable, has apparently undergone network decay into a show that books a lot of kooks and folks from the alt-right / MRA / conspiracy crowd. The impression I get from many Reddit comments is that he *does* way overplay the transphobic stuff (which "fits" given his personality apparently is libertarian bro). So I'm not seeing a problem with that article so far. Soundwave106 (talk) 19:45, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

It's amusing the "rationalists" used "concern troll" as I predicted. It's impossible anyone could read rationalwiki at some point and then be turned off by it becoming SJWiki ver.2 Anyone who criticizes is a troll! -2601:546:8100:2035:44F4:A93A:35E9:FFF8 (talk) 17:08, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This is actually a really blatant example of a concern troll. Someone tries to come off as reasonable and "concerned" and "free thinking" but the language indicates bigotry but also displays vast ignorance despite self-assertion (through trite buzzwords like "rationality", "logic") that they know better. People respond appropriately "hey, you're a troll" and now the troll or other onlookers that agree with the troll go, "lol u guys just call everyone u don't agree with a troll". I've seen better jobs at trolling. How has "SJW" hasn't fallen out of fashionable troll lexicon yet, by the way? 17:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * "Everybody who criticizes me is just a bigoted troll." I already predicted I'd be called that in the first post. -2601:546:8100:2035:44F4:A93A:35E9:FFF8 (talk) 17:32, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * SJW is one of those insults that by it's very nature backfires. You're essentially saying that we can feel empathy and you cannot. That's nice dear. 17:35, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * "OH I'm so oppressed, they see through my dumb shit immediately". Fuck off, little baby brain.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:39, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I literally said I would be called a troll in the beginning. There's nothing to see through.-2601:546:8100:2035:44F4:A93A:35E9:FFF8 (talk) 17:41, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Stop be Irrational. We defeated you with facts and logic. Suck it up snowflake cuck. 17:47, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you check under your bed for alt-righters?-2601:546:8100:2035:44F4:A93A:35E9:FFF8 (talk) 17:51, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Quit your PC virtue signaling BoN, we all know what you are. 17:53, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * An NPC that sexually identifies as its IP address? CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 18:00, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Attention, everyone, the troll in question is Dmorris. Carry on. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  18:10, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Nope-2601:546:8100:2035:44F4:A93A:35E9:FFF8 (talk) 18:31, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Weird how the IPs you use just happen to be in Morris' IP range. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  18:40, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I live in western PA. If this individual also lives there, then that's not something I can really help. -2601:546:8100:2035:44F4:A93A:35E9:FFF8 (talk) 19:01, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I mean, given this section is premised on your lying your ass off, I don't see why you'd be telling the truth now. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:28, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

What you are doing is douchey and you know it. I pity you for spending your free time trying to rile people up and upset them for your own kicks. Shabi DOO  19:56, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It's well known that Morris is currently seeking employment, ie unemployed, what a sad, lonely little man. RIP. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  20:11, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Who the hell is Dmorris? I'm a bit lost here. Revolverman (talk) 22:58, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * A troll from Conservapedia, lives in Pensacola, Florida, has a strange obsession with mutilating cheerleaders and harassing me, has a record for cyberstalking and harassment. Perennial troll here too. 'Nuff said. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  02:16, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

If the original poster goes looking for transphobia they will find it even in places where others agree with Gilbert and Sullivan that like 'the flowers that bloom in the spring tra la' it has 'nothing to do with the case.' Anna Livia (talk) 10:44, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Jeremy Cunt Hunt vs. Barney Rubble on Meth Boris Johnson: Who will win?

 * 1) Who has the biggest chance of winning?
 * 2) Is said winner going to hold a second referendum, like Labour wants?
 * 3) If Boris wins, will several Conservatives step out of politics like they said they would?

Yours truly. Tinribmancer (talk) 10:33, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No surprise. Johnson won. 92 thousand votes to 46 thousand. Totally repellant. I'll grab a bowl of popcorn and watch his short lived Prime Ministership implode. It began years ago when he totally invented the EU boogeyman while a bored reporter in Brussels. It will end with his abject failure to do anything. I humbly predict he won't even last as long as May. It's a small concession during a pretty tragic time. Looking at his stupid dishonest arrogant smirky face when he is booted out of Downing Street. Shabi  DOO  11:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I would hope its very short lived but I wouldn't count on it. Labour doesn't look especially credible right now. they've had pretty much an open goal with this current government and they've failed to capitalise on it. and bear in mind that the 'success' it had at the last election was being beaten into 2nd place by a bunch of fucknut incompetents. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:07, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * its a crap shoot and the only certainty is hard Brexit and the break up of the uk. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:08, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * When's the last time a PM in the UK was actually elected elected?  The pig fucker?  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems quite likely to me that he cannot possibly negotiate any deal, will go for a hard brexit, be blocked by parliament, then spend more time trying to justify another long delay unable to solve the problem, become the focus of merciless criticism and attack (like May) and eventually leave as a failure. Perhaps he'll find a way to cirumvent parliament. If that's the case, once recession kicks in after a hard-brexit...it's hard to imagine him lasting as long as May did while people are losing their jobs and the UK loses business and financial partners. I may be wrong but I really mean it that it will be extremely entertaining watching him fumble around for the next months (as sad as it is for everyone else). Shabi  DOO  20:01, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * All UK PM's are elected - they have to be MP's. I guess what you really mean is when was the last time the UK had a PM who was the party leader at the previous election and has remained such without interruption?  well that would be David Cameron in 2015, who resigned in 2016 'cos he didn't like Brexit.  The next election is in 2020 since they have 5 year terms. Aloysius the Gaul 23:47, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * he didn't resign because he didn't like Brexit, he resigned because of hubris and because he didn't want to deal with the mess he caused. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:34, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * and if some MPs actually follow through on their posturing we will ave an election a lot sooner AMassiveGay (talk) 10:37, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * So, the Tories are in disarray, but Corbyn's trepidation on Brexit means that they'll still probably stay in power? Wow. I mean, I like what Corbyn says and all, but every article I read convinces me more and more that he cannot lead Labour out of a wet paper bag. RoninMacbeth (talk) 18:55, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I was so positive about corbyn initially, I thought we might actually get a labour party that was actually a labour party. then Brexit, and his performance then and since, ive gone 180 on him. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:42, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * it doesn't even matter what he or any mp says. its all fantasy and empty promises until they address Brexit, something hes consistently failed to do. something they all have failed to do with any degree of adequacy. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:47, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Absolute insanity
https://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/8-reasons-why-men-should-worship-goddesses-wcz/ WTH is this person on about? Commie Lib (talk) 11:22, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I like this Andrew person's comment:


 * Tinribmancer (talk) 12:25, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Slow news day, I think. Ex punk guy who has embraced what appears to be the New Age side of the force, or whatever they call Western mutations of Asian philosophies these days (he's a practitioner "Taoist Sexual Kung Fu", whatever the heck that is, and mentions psychedelic trance and tantra type stuff in the article), with too much emphasis on orgasms and irrelevant battle-of-the-sexes jaw-jaw. I guess someone shared the babble somewhere because this is one of the few articles on this site anyone has actually commented on, but I'd throw this prater on the "mostly harmless" side. Soundwave106 (talk) 13:10, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

"God's Love" and a video I made almost 2 months ago
Okay, about 2 months ago I made an EAS scenario based off the Plagues of Egypt in the Bible. Now, I actually made it to where God was the asshole. Now at the end of the video I had it where the plagues are removed. One person actually commented, "It is a sign of God's forgiveness". The point of the video is where God senselessly slaughters innocent people. At the end of the video I have it say in the epilogue, Most people lose their faith due to the senseless slaughter of innocent people. How is that God being nice or loving? --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 12:46, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Does "God's Love" involve Catholic priests? — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  13:11, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Not sure. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 13:35, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * What makes the people innocent? The fact they deny God's rights as creator and follow after idols? nobsI'm all yea'res 05:03, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps being born into the wrong tribe by accident, and too young to make any choices might qualify, like many of those firstborn?Aloysius the Gaul 05:44, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * A bad tree cannot bring forth good fruit. The seed of the wicked shall be rooted out. These axioms are as old as the hills. My God, if God says they are guilty, they're guilty, I guess. Go ahead, trash talk God for being God. It's not gonna win you any brownie points with God. In fact, God is probably gonna call it pride (a capital offense) for you thinking you're smarter than God. nobsI'm all yea'res 06:01, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Is your god's ego that easily bruised? Some god. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  06:22, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Nah - that god's just an arseholeAloysius the Gaul 07:00, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Distinction without a difference. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  07:18, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * @nobs. I will pray Mielikki, the Forest Queen, for you. Panzerfaust (talk) 12:36, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If anybody does watch the video, I do put God in a negative light. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 19:08, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Pray to me. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  04:30, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

We are at a crossroads
It is obvious neoliberal centrism is not the way of the future, and our civilization is at a turning point comparable to the Industrial Revolution, the Enlightenment, and even the Protestant Reformation. That also means there will be violence, bloodshed even, as combating ideologies at this harrowing time take to the streets and duke it out over our future. With the dark threat of global warming constantly looming over our shoulders and the biodiversity crisis occurring in the here and now, as worldwide fascism and communism make a comeback, as automation rises and forces people to be unemployed permanently, this isn't like your usual societal crisis, this is big, humanity will never be the same. So which will you choose: socialism, or barbarism? — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  06:44, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Which side is the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) on? That may influence my choice.  nobsI'm all yea'res 07:08, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Considering the fact that China is a capitalist's dream come true, they're on the wrong side of history. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  07:17, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * So the capitalist polluters who shoot people for their kidney's and use socialist surveillance police state tactics to imprison Muslim Uygers in communist gulags are barbarians; what side are the theocratic Muslim beheaders that the CCP opposes on? nobsI'm all yea'res 07:30, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * China has/had gulags? Tinribmancer (talk) 08:15, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If you can believe the capitalist Western media, China has a million Muslims separated from their families and locked in concentration camps right now based on their race and religion. nobsI'm all yea'res 08:21, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * China isn't socialist, ever heard of, Nobs? China has a strong private sector. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  08:24, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay. So China is capitalist/barbarian. What side are theocratic Muslim beheaders on? This is a fair question, being that (a) the atheist/capitalist Chinese are at odds with the theocratic Muslims, who (b) combined make up 50% of the planet's population. nobsI'm all yea'res 08:30, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Have you ever considered the fact that Muslims aren't a hive mind? — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  08:54, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Well yes. That's why I limited the question to leadership classes, the CCP and Muslim zealot beheaders. While not all from these groups can be assumed to follow whichever way the leadership classes go, we can assume a large majority will. Would you agree in the cataclysmic two-sided scenario you outlined, these two groups, the Islamic world and the Chinese, would be at odds with each other?
 * A follow up question would be, the Western alliance and Russia would be only bit-players in terms of manpower, while being large economic contributors in terms of weapons, transport, etc.?
 * The Islamic world isn't a unified polity, just look at the ongoing cold war between Iran and Saudi Arabia for an example. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  09:54, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Exactly. So I'd be inclined to say the more educated, practical Shia would hook up with the barbarian CCP, and the fundamentalist Sunni would hook up with godless Marxists. nobsI'm all yea'res 10:24, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * And things being what they are, the liberal/socialist/globalist "putting people first" environmentally conscious leftist-dominated EU and US would line up with the Saudis to rape the Arab world of its natural resources in order to fight the China/Iran barbarian capitalist exploiters and polluters. nobsI'm all yea'res 10:32, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

"leftist-dominated EU". "barbarian-capitalist-exploiters". "Rape the arab world" "liberal/socialist/globalist". Zheesh Robsmith. Is everything okay with you today? Shabi DOO  12:06, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * He forgot to take his pills and instead took the one's that Schlafly gave him. Tinribmancer (talk) 12:10, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Well look, we're faced with this choice between socialism and barbarism. Survival of civilization and the planet is at stake. The Chinese Communist Party evidently is barbarian. The fundie theocratic Muslims are in bed with godless Marxists. The EU certainly is dominated by enlightened socialists. Enlightened progressives in the US have the upper hand over rightwing fascist Christian barbarians and the Trump administration in the United States. The U.S. appears to be the main battleground in this apocalyptic struggle between the forces of good and evil. This isn't like your usual societal crisis, this is big, humanity will never be the same. nobsI'm all yea'res 16:30, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Something something Jesus was a revolutionary socialist something something. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  17:25, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This entire conversation is a bunch of bollocks. Throughout history, at every major juncture and change, one thing has always been consistent; People with privilege maintain power. That's what's gonna happen now too.RipCityLiberal (talk) 17:28, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I would argue the choice is not between socialism and barbarism, but rather as evidenced by the CCP, socialism is a cover for barbarism. Socialism evolves into barbarism. nobsI'm all yea'res 18:13, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * My serious answer, if we're gonna look political pragmatism in the face, is the near-extinction of the human race. That's the most reasonable, and sound next step.  We will absolutely not be able to align with universal human interests long enough to address our problems.  If we, as a species, could drop absolutist ideology, pointless nationalism, denialism, racism, and greed long enough to institute reforms on major risks to the species, neoliberal global capitalism wouldn't be that big a barrier.  The water shortages (and associated wars and diseases) we're headed towards will, at the very least, cause a billion deaths.  If you want to set pragmatic cynicism aside, I've seen dozens of visions for a more utopian world than the status quo, and I'm not particularly attached to any of them.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:21, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * From the picture you paint of world politics I have this image of idealistic EU intellectuals sitting in armchairs pontificating on the Human condition and reading 19th century Italian poetry. Meanwhile the Chinese are rubbing their hands planning their devious attempt to spread human oppression around the world while at the same time representatives of Islam all meet in their secret underground layer where the plan for the future in unity with one clear simply voice and their plans for menacing the world. And then there is Trump carrying out his well thought out plan, years in the making while four ambitious renegade democrats try to thwart his plans...clearly in a battle where one of them will be victorious and set the agenda for American politics for decades to come. All these forces are in an epic struggle for world domination while small factions get their hands on nuclear arms attempting to blow up big cities and contribute to climate change through atomic mayhem. Clearly this is a totally unique moment in history where things usually stay the same but in this case, right now, every paradigm in the world will shift and nothing can ever come back from the upcoming doom! Shabi  DOO  18:29, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * We've had this doom and gloom feeling before. And again the people that will suffer are poor, underprivileged people. RipCityLiberal (talk) 18:31, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * As the question mentioned, global warming is a big problem. In fact, it's far and away the biggest problem. Any crisis of governance is going to be really insignificant compared to the impact of of the climate crisis. All the rest is navel gazing.


 * I don't that that either capitalism or some variant of socalim is going to fix it in time. And Jesus certainly isn't going to come back to fix it all either. We are just fucked.Hubert (talk) 18:37, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Board election question
So, how many of the 5 candidates become trustees? 2? 3? Tinribmancer (talk) 08:14, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Three, because three seats are up for reelection. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  08:23, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

2020
If this article is accurate, humanity is dead. Trump is likely to win the 2020 election, and if all our hopes ride on him losing, we're dead. Period. 19:11, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * RIP 19:17, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Humanity is not going to go extinct, but it will certainly not operate in it's current form.RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:27, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Can we start calling climate change deniers the worst scum of the planet?  19:37, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I thought people already called them that? Tinribmancer (talk) 19:57, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That's sort of a generational thing; up until to recent decades nuclear proliferation was the biggest problem facing the planet; not until communists took over the public schools and started brainwashing children with Russian disinformation about global warming to subvert the capitalist order did climate change become such a pressing issue. nobsI'm all yea'res 20:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Rob? You're retired. Shut up. 20:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * "It's sort of a generational thing" is a bullshit lie. It's just over half of voters in one party in the US, and if you actually look at statistics, there's no age group that majority denies human role in climate change.  Just a majority of republicans.  Climate denial comes from an absence of intelligence and morals.  Nothing else.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:48, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The question is, What is the biggest threat facing the planet? Boomers and Cold War veterans are inclined to say "nuclear proliferation." Millennials will say "Paying nuclear blackmail to Iran and North Korea, without any agreements that the nuclear blackmail money will not be used to add to the climate crisis, is a bigger priority." nobsI'm all yea'res 21:46, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * For fucks sake. We are making the planet inhospitable for human life because unfettered capitalism and nobs is bringing up making the planet inhospitable for human life through a nuclear war. Both of those are bad, but only one has a political movement behind it screaming FAKE NEWS!RipCityLiberal (talk) 22:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Not sure I understand your response; so the U.S. should submit to nuclear blackmail, while China, Iran, and North Korea continue destroying the planet with carbon emissions using the money the U.S. pays them, as long as the U.S. continues to de-industrialized and sinks into poverty. This is your basic argument. nobsI'm all yea'res 23:02, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * SHUT UP!!! IDIOTS LIKE YOU ARE GOING TO KILL US ALL AND THERE IS VERY LITTLE STANDING BETWEEN CYNICS LIKE ME AND OFFING THE LOT OF YOU DUMB FUCKS!! SO FOR ONCE IN YOUR GODS FORSAKEN LIFE, SHUT THE FUCK UP AND LISTEN!!! 23:27, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * GC, chill dude. He's a troll, don't give him any more ammo. And Nobs, Iran and NK do not produce anywhere near the carbon emissions of China and the United States. Changes in our economy are not only good because they reduce carbon emissions, but they are actually supported by the business community because they create new economic opportunities. Your inability to see this is the modern equivalent of not supporting electric street lights because street lamp lighters will be put out of work. Or that car will never replace horses because they travel too fast. Or that no one will replace their radios with televisions. Or that no one will actually want DVD's sent to them at home instead of going to the video store. The only constant in life is the constant improvement to make things cheaper and more efficient. Right now, Coal is not cheaper than wind, and electric storage capacity is increasing so quickly it will likely replace many current fossil fuel based plants. RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:40, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I can agree with all of that. Once we stop paying nuclear blackmail and get the problem of nuclear proliferation back in hand, then we can turn to the second most important priority facing survival of the planet. nobsI'm all yea'res 00:04, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You don't get it. We can do both, and at the same time. We aren't going to choose between the two. So, shut up. 00:09, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Then why do communists (a) criticize President Trump's overtures to North Korea; (b) oppose rescinding the Iran Nuke Deal; and (c) criticize Chinese tariffs? If what you say is true, why then do commie libs oppose addressing the problems of nuclear proliferation as President Trump is attempting and favor climate change as a priority? nobsI'm all yea'res 00:33, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Iran was following the terms of the deal, and remember, by lifting the deal they can now enrich uranium to higher levels now rather than in 10 years. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  03:07, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I know this petty, but "commie libs" is just horrible. Liberals are centrists, communists are far left authoritarians. It's kind of hard for the center of the spectrum to also be its far-left end. 03:13, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * As if that matters to Nobs, either way fuck liberals. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  03:16, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Honestly, those distinctions don't matter to me personally. I call myself a liberal only because I'm strictly left wing and just as a quick idea of how I fall on the spectrum but I do think socialist may be more accurate for me, though that carries baggage in the U.S.. 03:37, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * In the US, it's called being a progressive. It's a pretty clever workaround, since moving forward in policy as a platform is literally progressive policy, but also because a huge portion of voting Americans believe the Nazis were atheist socialist justice warriors, and welfare and healthcare and separation of church and state are not American ideals, they are Nazi things. Also, the Nazis and communists were the same thing.  Also, everyone who disagrees needs to read a history book.  Also, that history book is the Bible, and you don't have to actually read it.  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:37, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * a further aside on trump and nuclear proliferation - for trump,, as well as the aforementioned withdrawal from the iran deal, involves wanting to increase the US's own arsenal ten fold, encouraging Japan to get its own nuclear deterrent, giving the saudis nuclear technology, all the while threatening countries with annihilation with smouldering ruins in iraq as a backdrop. its a small wonder iran is looking for a nuke, while nk tests more missiles. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:05, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Now you are catching on. If Iran gets a nuke, then Saudi Arabia needs a nuke, too. If NK doesn't give up nukes, then Japan needs a nuke, too. This is why the issue is so important. Putting the issue on the back burner causes proliferation. nobsI'm all yea'res 13:54, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Trump cancels the JCPOA. Iran starts rapidly enriching uranium. The right-wing US / Israel hawks can't explain that. :p At any rate, good job derailing a bit of a scare piece on climate change (which is, frankly, is actually more important than the usual nuclear weapon politics, and a much harder to solve issue.) The over-exaggeration of the BBC article is owing to Trump not being the entire US, of course. Even normally "non-commie" states go green when the price is right. Donald Trump may laughably believe windmills cause cancer, but despite his lunacy, the midwest US is migrating rather quickly towards wind (Iowa generates 37% of its energy from wind, for instance.) Soundwave106 (talk) 16:06, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * hes literally the cause of the current proliferation. there is no way you can spin it otherwise. get your head out of your (and trumps) arse. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:00, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * honestly, you could form a human centipede with you eating trumps arse as he chows down on putins AMassiveGay (talk) 14:08, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * NK has nukes already and Trump doesn't seem to give a shit about that. Iran doesn't have nukes, but Israel does, and they also aren't a member of any nuclear proliferation agreements. RipCityLiberal (talk) 15:25, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The Iraq war taught the world one lesson, it's far better to have nukes when being accused of making them than not. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:31, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I can't really see the point in saving the planet with a carbon tax or Green New Deal, when you guys are so willing to see it destroyed in a moment by a nutcase like Hitler, Trump, Saddam, bin Laden, Kim, etc. nobsI'm all yea'res 16:55, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You're old and near death. we're younger and would like to avoid dying, as crazy as that sounds. 17:05, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * There is literally no reasoning with nobs, you have to know that by now. He's not as advanced as other dipshits, his whole program is "10 Change subject to the 3 things he hates 20 GOTO 10"  He cannot and will not ever address a point as given.  Also, 3 of your five worries for nuclear war are fuckin dead, nobs.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:21, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * How old is nobs? Tinribmancer (talk) 19:59, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * THE WORLD IS BURNING. WHY ARE YOU ARGUING WITH THIS GUY. 20:08, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * dunno if you mean that figuratively or not, but it literally is. im so fucking hot. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:28, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I was trying to reference the Bill Nye thing. I honestly think it's a little bit both figuratively and literally. :P 20:31, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Guys, guys
Can we please be real? Who are we helping with this apocalyptic talk? If humanity continues to pollute and ignore the environment, as is likely, then it's going to bite us in the ass eventually. But there's still a big difference between "many people will be forced to flee their homes" and "the planet will be made inhospitable to human life". Ultimately most of the casualties likely won't come from direct environmental causes but from regional conflicts over resources and population flows. 142․124․55․236 (talk) 07:46, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with the BoN. This conversation is so much filled with Fear mongering BS, that it makes us just as bad as Fox, CP, Infowars and every single crank on the internet. We should be above that. We still have all our marbles (minus nobs, but that's a whole different story.


 * Less doomsday scenarios, more making fun of dumb people. Like Conservapedians or ghost believers. Tinribmancer (talk) 08:17, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * what you have there is a recipe for inaction. as long as people keep saying that its not that bad, its not effecting them personally, nothing will change. which is a shame because it is apocalyptic. there should be fear mongering. theres a lot to be fearful of. think of all the problems we have today increasing exponentially.
 * the clock is ticking and we continue to come up with excuses to do nothing. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:01, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * What you have there is a recipe for conservative memes juxtaposing doomsday rhetoric with Leonardo DiCaprio flying around in his private jet and people becoming desensitized to the issue. Fearmongering has failed, time to try a different strategy. 142․124․55․236 (talk) 11:22, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I frankly don't give a damn at this point. The IPCC predictions have been roughly correct for about 30 years now. If people want to believe the Koch/Exxon funded misinformation, that's their problem. (Small wonder that many financial scam schemes target today's populist conservative media, these schemes adore the low-information crowd). If people want to believe the sky-is-falling Chicken Little shit, that's also their problem. (This is where the BBC needs to up their game, they are normally a little bit better than this. I get the point they are making, but it's a bit overkill.) Soundwave106 (talk) 12:20, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * you think conservative memes and misinformation wont occur without folk stoking well founded fears? people already deny its happening, already minimising fears. its not fear mongering that's the problem. its the lack fear full stop. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:01, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * what action do think people will take if they think only the poorer countries in the world will take the brunt, or that richer countries will likely just about get by? we already know the answer to that. its not not to tackle climate change, its too build a wall.
 * meanwhile the clock keeps on ticking. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:05, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Conservatives are gonna conservative, this much is true. That doesn't mean we should be validating their narrative, though. The threat is real and big enough, there's no need to embellish. If people stop taking you seriously you're not gonna convince anyone to support climate action. 142․124․55․236 (talk) 12:12, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * people in a position to make a difference already don't it take seriously. they never have. the only thing about climate change such people take seriously is that action will cost them profit. this is not like info wars. the sciences is done. we know its going to bad. its not fear mongering to say it will be bad. if you are not fearful you are an idiot. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:29, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * or work in the oil industry. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:29, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Great, so now you're at the point where everyone who feels slightly less alarmed than you is either dumb or a shill. So you've basically given up on convincing anyone, ensuring that nothing gets done. If the science is done, why are you pushing people away from it? None of this attitude makes sense. 142․124․55․236 (talk) 13:59, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * at this point, they are dumb or a shill. as I said, the facts speak for themselves. concern trolling isnt going to change that. minimising the danger isn't going change that. most people are already on board. its people in power who arnt and responsible for the inaction. electoral destruction at ballot box is all that they fear, and worrying about conservative memes isn't going to galvanise people to make those fears a reality.
 * and while most do generally accept the dangers of climate change, they wont see them as real while they seem distant and abstract. they are not fearful enough. that needs to change. the clock is ticking. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:23, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I got an idea: Let's censor and ban conservative voices from social media so we can implement slave reparations, a UBI, and Medicare for All which will reduce carbon emissions in the next 18 months to stop people being forced from their homes. And if we're wrong, we have the added benefit of introducing leftwing totalitarianism. nobsI'm all yea'res 15:30, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Conservatives, the group who is mostly responsibile for inaction, partially also the centrists who want to saw their own legs off to appease conservatives, deserve all the ire in this world. Climate change denialism should be addressed, even sanctioned, particular against bigger figures that spread this dangerous nonsense. 16:15, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a no-win situation; when the temperature finally hits 63 C. and when all turn into molten blobs of what was once living flesh, or our lungs get strangled with methane gas emissions, you won't be able to collect your pension as a gulag re-education camp guard for your political opponents. We're all in the same boat. nobsI'm all yea'res 19:22, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Gulag Re-education camps? Is it like these camps? Did you forget to take your sanity pills, Nobsie? Tinribmancer (talk) 20:38, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Nah. healthcare rationing means elites like Bob Mueller gets his first (they don't work anyway, evidently) while I await my hearing before Obamacare death panels. nobsI'm all yea'res 01:41, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * nobs, if you need a new kidney, I will gladly suck the blood of aborted fetuses until my blood-type is your match, and demand my favorite kidney, which I have named nobs, goes directly to you, screw those death panels. That's how medicine works these days, right? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 07:07, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * lol. Tinribmancer (talk) 13:15, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * As long as the kidney is cheaper than the one I can get FedEx'd from the Chinese gulag. nobsI'm all yea'res 23:01, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Also not sure where this idea of "only poor countries will suffer" is coming from. Many Western seaside and riverside properties will soon have to be abandoned due to not being built to cope with being underwater. This includes some of the largest cities in the northern hemisphere. 142․124․55․236 (talk) 12:24, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Apples of Eden/dark enlightenment/my worldview.
It may seem weird that I'm posting this here, but I need to get it out. My mental and emotional health obviously haven't been faring well given the neo-fascist dictatorship the U.S. is rapidly turning into. This attitude is obvious considering my rapidly diminishing tolerance for centrists and right-wingers, my ruder responses to most forms of woo, and my overall demeanor. If I disappear I've probably taken a break for my own good, mostly to prevent me from doing something violent in the throes of anger, depression, and/or general apathy towards humanity. 04:05, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oof, I hope you get better, man, and keep up the good fight. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  04:26, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Screaming into the void because you're sick of shit is an exhausting hobby. Nobody here will get mad at you if we fuck it up ourselves while you're on vacation.  I hope you can take that good time for yourself.  I want you to, and relay it back.  That time spent doing something so engaging and immersive for long enough that you don't have time to think about anything else for a while. That's the Holy Grail of vacations, and it's different for everyone.  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:27, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The pendulum swings. There's going to be a massive pushback against Trump, it's only a matter of time. 19:25, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * one would hope so. don't believe it till its happening though. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:23, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think it'll happen soon enough. We've dawdled way too long on climate change, we wasted so many years because of conservatives and wishy washy centrists. I just know from pattern of history, that's how shifts happen. I want Trump impeached. He's pretty much in that zone of being impeachable, with what, obstructing justice (only for his minions to quit), being compliant with foreign influence in elections, other damning things in the Mueller report. People had the same "Nixon is fine" attitude at one point. Even if we get Mike Pence for president, at least we can show them there's accountability they have to consider. 20:30, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * republicans need to get on board with that. is there any sign they are? what about republican voters? are they losing patience with him or just digging their heels in? AMassiveGay (talk) 20:36, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That's what's so frustrating. Republicans, politicians and voters, collectively are awful. 21:05, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * People can be awful, I guess. A lot of people think the economy is very good, and that is enough for them. Now one wouldn't want to say that about one's friends, that they only care about themselves. But it's more than that. The economy is not good. Some people are afraid. They listen to Trump and find others to blame for their fears. I mean how can so many people believe that illegal immigrants are a real problem, when under President Obama immigration was at a fifty year low? Fear, I think. I don't think the economy will get better. I expect it to get much worse under Trump's policies. Then he will be gone. Ariel31459 (talk) 23:00, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * But that's horrible to think the economy is good and that's because Trump did it, so we don't have to worry about climate change, crumbling infrastructure, dismal healthcare, gun crimes, income inequality, wage stagnation, cost of rent, ballooning tuition, immigrants treated like shit, voter suppression. How are people like this? They base current performance just on "economy" and don't really care for the terrible everything else? I can't wrap my mind on these people. How come that approval rating moves a bit? Why isn't it stuck at 30%? Why isn't it lower? How are people this messed up? 23:09, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * One of the problems is that Trump has threatened to not leave if voted out, and given his personality, he might very well be serious about that threat. And if we go further down this dark road... Well, I've peeked ahead in the script, and I honestly dislike it. And the worst thing is I can't ignore it, it's always there like a storm cloud, hovering over everything, just waiting to burst. I honestly think you guys can do something else and forget for awhile, but for me it's there, always. 23:18, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It's the curse of knowledge basically, hence the subject title. I know, therefore I am cursed. 23:25, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, that explains it. I almost thought you believed in the Assassin's Creed mythology. 142․124․55․236 (talk) 07:32, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I get poetic when I'm depressed. 13:19, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Facebook shuts down large anti-vax group
Oh dear, how sad, never mind Avida Dollarsher again 20:04, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You're way too late, Facebook. You also caused this to happen with your piss ass lazy algorithms and let it run its course, since it made you money, until after the damage has been done. 20:10, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * As per usual. Exploit the asset until it becomes too toxic to use, then dispose of it. Business as usual. 20:13, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * so capitalism at work (sic)? Aloysius the Gaul 03:36, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The good news is the asset became toxic before the water supply. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:56, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

On the wrong side of history
I've encountered this phrase a couple times and I'm wondering what most accurately describes what people mean by it. 142․124․55․236 (talk) 08:17, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

"You're on the wrong side of history" means: <multi poll=onthewrongside01> A majority of humans across all of history would condemn this. Future generations will condemn this. The most advanced civilizations from the future would condemn this. Actually, "of history" is optional. You're just objectively morally wrong.
 * Its a pretty meaningless question without context AMassiveGay (talk) 11:17, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Well yes, the specific meaning of words often depends on context. Though I'm not aware that the phrase is used differently in reference to e.g. LGBT rights, capitalism vs socialism, or climate activism. 142․124․55․236 (talk) 11:35, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * that's still not really enough context. whos saying it? about what? on what 'side' do they sit? its different things to different people. its not always about morality or condemnation. its often about who is 'winning' AMassiveGay (talk) 12:09, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * and it takes no account of if they are actually correct. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:11, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It's less that people will condemn it, and more that people will look back and say "How could they be so craven, cowardly, cruel, and stupid?" As we do to, say, the confederacy or the fourth crusade.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:23, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Conservatives made me feel that way during the historic wave of gay rights fights and also how conservatives stopped the ERA, and that wasn't too long ago. I'm betting transphobia today is going to look bad in future generations too. 16:21, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * When I used the phrase earlier to the transphobic troll, I meant, "Future generations will condemn this" and, "You're already behind the times." Spud (talk) 07:19, 27 July 2019 (UTC)