RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive389

Crypto for Sale
Bitcoin crashes to $32k, may go down further. Everyone, panic-sell your Bitcoins, and drive it down further! I'm hoping it goes to 0, so people stop wasting electricity on this garbage and I can buy a graphics card again. CorSock (talk) 13:24, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hear, hear! Meow Purr 13:39, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm still waiting for the price of my tulip bulbs to recover. :( Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 13:40, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * A toast to the fall of Doge… er…Bitcoin! Thanks Elon!SensaurC-137 (talk) 15:04, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * What comes up fast must eventually fall off faster than a Metal Mario off an airship. Please let graphics cards be affordable again. 15:09, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. Gold is the world's oldest speculation bubble.  But what Bitwits don't want to grasp is that if the world economy were to utterly collapse, it's irrelevant how valuable those coins are if there's no electricity to run the computers.  16:34, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * And up to $40k. Dead cat bounce?  And going down again...  WOO this rollercoaster is fun!CorSock (talk) 19:27, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "Bitcoin is very volatile" (cue Napalm Death song) PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 21:29, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * GPUs will be quickly outpaced by ASIC miners, so their price won't be inflated forever. We might see a bounce towards them being even cheaper once the demand for GPU mining is gone. In terms of electricity usage, I would imagine mining bitcoin is a less resource-intensive than our current banking systems. Kauri0.o (talk) 04:19, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * What? No, the current financial system absolutely does not require anything more than a fraction of a cent of electricity for a transaction.  Bitcoin however requires around $70 worth of electricity per transaction.  Banking in general doesn't involve any significant amount of raw resources.  04:26, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, banking has this entire range of services you need. You need a bank for a car, online transactions, a house, an apartment, credit card stuff, etc. What do you need bitcoin for compared to these essentials????? 17:03, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If it hits zero it still has a chance of bouncing back. Hope it goes into the negative range. 18:55, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Pentagon UFOs
What do you all think of the Pentagon's UFO videos? Could it be aliens!?! &#39;&#39;NiciesMan&#39;&#39; (talk) 04:11, 21 May 2021 (UTC)NiciesMan
 * No. 04:13, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You do realize that other countries test their aircraft all the friggen time, right? The US isn't the only country with a weapons development program you know.  Heck, "Area 51" was an air force base in the middle of a giant desert, it was an open secret that the US was testing all sorts of crazy stealth aircraft there such as the B-2 or the F-117, and people seeing unusual aircraft were just told it was nothing.  The US military has plenty of toys that have yet to be officially revealed.  04:15, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree. If we don't know what it is then we can conclude it must be aliens. (or ghosts, or demons).Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:07, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "Aliens" might actually work, using the non-History Channel version of the word (foreigner). I checked out one of the CNN stories on the subject, and two things immediately struck me: A) The video was incredibly shitty, the "UFOs" were just these "dots" that could be anything. (Which is really all a UFO means in official talk, a flying object that could be anything, but those aliensdidit folks sure are reliant on shitty video, eh?) B) This was the first time I remember encountering a video at CNN that looked more like something posted by low effort YouTube spammers from clickbait "news" sites (Cue the stock electronic background music! Cue the title cards instead of human narration! Cue the bad grammar -- "shows a UFO disappear into the water" as your header, what the fuck, CNN?). Draw your own conclusions on what CNN thinks about this story. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 12:27, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Speaking of aliens, I still like Trevor Noah's (at least I think it was his) joke that we can be sure that the US government has no top secret knowledge of the existence of aliens that they're hiding since if they did Trump would have told us all what he saw when they told him of it. In reality if the US really had such a thing, I don't think anyone would have been particularly interested in telling Trump, but let's not worry about that :-P Nil Einne (talk) 15:25, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Bet that it isn't and expect to make money. Here's why.UncleKrampus (talk) 19:49, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Alien treasure
If an interstellar capsule (or just any object from space for that matter) suddenly crashed into your backyard one morning, what would you wish it contained? 15:49, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy with a big pallasite.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:59, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Coffee. I hate dealing with anything in the morning before I've had coffee. 17:42, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * A translator suite so's I could more effectively toady up to our new overlords. Artificius (talk) 19:35, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd want a big-ass chunk of Vibranium. 15:17, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * A lifetime supply of a version of meth that doesn’t destroy my mental and physical health. 2001:8004:DC2:9389:C13A:1FFB:C4B9:247C (talk) 00:50, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * An explosion of birds!!! 16:56, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Opinions on this supposedly "real" paranormal tale
I had the unfortunate displeasure of watching one of Matthew Santoro's videos on account of OCD, went through the sources (which surprise surprise were all reddit stories) and one stuck out as odd to me. Not because it's paranormal, it's just people all agreeing that this person definitely is a psychic or has some extra sensory fuckery where she can see dead people or something.

Here's the story, I'll summarise for the interesting bits. By the way, this comes from a subreddit where people are all too eager to use the didit fallacy.


 * When OP was about 12, their sister was born premature (7 months) and had down syndrome
 * When Diana (OP's sister) is 3 or 4 she runs to a stranger and mysteriously knows that the stranger's mother left them, the stranger starts crying as that was the case.
 * When Diana was 10 she knew that her real grandmother passed away (without prior knowledge allegedly) and knows that her grandmother had fake blonde hair and that her name was Jeannie, their grandmother passed away when their mother was pregnant with Diana so, apparently, no way of knowing her.
 * Apparently she knew OP was in an abusive relationship when no one else knew so Diana called them to say they need to get out of it.
 * Till this day, she speaks of dead people.

The story is odd and I wanted a skeptical perspective on this because people in the comments all seem to, without a shadow of a doubt, accept the story as fact, a lot of them claiming that people with disabilities have supernatural abilities or being "spiritually gifted" or being a medium or psychic. OP is very adamant that this is real and anyone who questions the veracity of it gets heavily downvoted.

So, what do you guys make of this? Also why are people so eager to accept this? I just need the other side of more grounded rationale because it's driving me insane. Cheers--WMS (talk) 14:39, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The first two are extremely suspect. What do these have to do with supposedly psychic abilities? The third is dubious, and possibly full of selective memory and other forms of confirmation bias. The fourth isn't hard if you pay attention, abusive spouses aren't that subtle. Final example isn't impressive. If you meant "speaks to dead people" that falls into the category of extraordinary claims. If you meant "talks about dead people", that's not really impressive. Finally, I have to wonder if this person with down syndrome really is claiming this stuff or if a friend or relative is making the claims, because the latter scenario opens the door for the potential of exploitation and abuse. 15:07, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah I feel the same thing about the abuse. The OP seems to assume none of the rest of the family knew. But is this from them actually saying that or did they just assume this because it was never mentioned? Like with my comments below, I could easily imagine the mum and other siblings having an inkling something bad was going on but not feeling able to do anything. And once it became more public, whether because they were ashamed or because the OP would take it poorly or other reasons e.g. simply feeling there was no point; not telling the OP they had suspected. By the same token, even if the OP did ask, they may not be willing to share that they suspected. And even more so than below, if they suspect abuse there's a good chance they share this with the younger sister since they want to warn her from getting too close to an abuser. Nil Einne (talk) 16:32, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I feel like the first premature birth portion is meant to add to the "oddity" of the situation. The second one I think is that she somehow knew that the stranger's mother died, I'm thinking that maybe the kid just saw a woman on her own and, the kid being a kid, assumed that the woman's parent left her alone in the mall. The third one, I agree, it's extremely suspect and, like you pointed out, may be due to confirmation bias, selective memory and just not having enough info. The one about OP being abused, I thought the same thing, surely if you're close with someone, you may suspect something is up when things just don't seem right. The last one was my bad, apparently she still talks to dead people, like you said it's an extraordinary claim and reading through the comments the OP felt like she doesn't have to prove anything to anyone about this, it's just real. Do you think the OP believes in this to be supernatural? I feel like they do, but with a few embellishments, the whole thing kinda reads like one of those stories about a kid with special abilities due to a disability or trauma.--WMS (talk) 17:44, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Correction: The biological grandmother passed away when the mother was pregnant with the older sister, not Diana the younger sister. Anyway an obvious thought while reading what you wrote was, why didn't a 10 year old even know her grandmother's name? For most families passing away doesn't mean they're wiped from memory and discussing at least something tends to be the norm in a lot of Western societies AFAIK. Reading the thread I see it's a "sore subject" for the mum which happens. But this leads to the obvious thought, just because it's a sore subject for the mum, doesn't mean others agree the best way to handle it is to never discuss it, even when the mum isn't around. I only skimmed, I didn't see any mention of a father, but it doesn't mean he's not and was never in the picture. There's also mention of the older sisters, so at least two other siblings. (The OP simply mentions older sister about the mum passing away, but the later part suggests this was probably the oldest sister as otherwise it seems likely the oldest sister would have meet the biological grandmother even if they didn't remember it.) Then there's the grandfather and step grandmother.  The OP of that thread mentioned that none of them (which I assume means all the siblings) know much about her (biological grandmother) but I'm not convinced. There's a easy chance at least one of older sisters may know more. Children and adults are often curious about where they came so asking about it isn't particularly surprising, and frankly I think many would argue that it's not the mum's place to say the grandfather (for example) can't tell a 21 year old about her biological grandmother. (Just noticed the grandfather passed away. But anyway the OP was ~17 when the grandfather passed away, ~22 years when the biological grandmother stuff came out. The older siblings could easily have been 21 before he passed but in any case, the precise ages don't matter to my point.) There may be other relatives, uncles and aunties etc in the picture too. It's even possible this was a less touchy subject earlier on so it was the mum who told the older sisters such details. Heck it's easily possible the older sisters have seen photos maybe even a video of the biological grandmother, and maybe even the younger sister has.  Who knows, assuming not much was known by the grandfather or they weren't willing to share much besides the name and no one else was, they may have researched independently. Heck even if no one was ever willing to share even the name, open records laws means in some places they could get the mum's birth certificate and find her mum's name and start from there.  If it's a touchy subject, they may not necessarily tell the OP what they knew especially if the OP didn't ask. But frankly, it's not clear to me if the OP didn't actually know those details, or they just assumed younger sister wouldn't.  As to why someone shared such details with the younger sister but not the OP, well as I mentioned maybe the OP never asked, but the younger sister might have. Maybe the younger sister never asked but whoever it was felt that given their conditions, they should share it with her. Maybe ~12 years ago whoever it was felt they should respect the mum's feelings since they felt the same or it was still raw but now they don't feel that way. Maybe whoever it was wasn't involved in the same way 12 years ago or whatever.  Notably in the case of the other siblings, the nature of their relationship is naturally likely to be somewhat different. While the ages of the older sisters aren't given that I saw, it seems to me there's a fair chance they may be close in age to the OP and grew up together. The OP was already 12 by the time the younger sister was born, the older sisters even older so potentially quite close to adulthood or maybe even adults. If you somehow found out something about biological grandmother but it's ?now a touchy subject for your mother, you may be reluctant to share it when growing up with the OP, but with your much younger sister? Maybe.  Oh and when the younger sister starts talking about it in front of the mother because they don't understand? Oh crap, but oh well, the person may easily feel telling the mum I told her would not help anyone or even just chickened out.  It's seems a bit cruel to not tell the OP 'um she knows about that because I told her and she's getting confused' if you found out that they think it's supernatural, but no guarantee whoever did tell the younger sister is aware of this. Depending on the dynamics, there's also a chance they wouldn't tell, not to be cruel but just because they don't want to get in to it. For all we know maybe one reason why the OP doesn't know is when then were younger and whoever was talking about it, the OP complained that they shouldn't talk about this since the mum doesn't like them doing so and so logically they have been excluded from such conversations.  Nil Einne (talk) 16:11, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a really good deconstruction of the story, certainly more grounded and realistic than the sister being psychic (from reading the comments) I think the OP believes that people with disabilities such as DS have some supernatural abilities, which is an odd belief but I digress. But yeah, we only have this side of the story of what happened approximately 20 or so years ago, we don't know (as well as OP doesn't know) if others spoke to Diana at any point regarding their family history.


 * Like you said, I think the OP was just missing key information and, via confirmation bias, assumed the extraordinary. I don't doubt that after 20 years the memories of this may be hazy and maybe even some embellishments sneaked into there. As for the instance with the random woman who's mother died of cancer, what do you think of that? Just coincidence? I mean the kid was 3-4 years old so I doubt she could fully comprehend anything.--WMS (talk) 17:36, 22 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Just another "oddity," when asked if the sister still does this, the OP replied with this: "Well, she still speaks to people who've passed away. And it was only a few years ago that she knew our eldest sister was going to have a miscarriage.


 * She said that our eldest sis was pregnant with a boy, and she kept saying his name was going to be Toby. Eldest sis kept saying she hated that name, but since Diana said it, she'd name the kid that if it was going to be a boy. I think eldest sis (let's call her Rei) was about 5ish months along when Diana started saying "Toby is gonna leave Rei" and "Toby is gonna go to heaven"..and Rei miscarried a couple of weeks later."--WMS (talk) 17:51, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Decided to message the OP, her reply was short and sweet
So decided to message the Op of the post, to get some more insight, this was the message:
 * "Hello,


 * to put it simply and bluntly, I don't believe your story- I mean no offense, I'm just a skeptic and, to me, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and, frankly, your story is very extraordinary.


 * Anyhow, I just had a few questions: did you just make up the story? Hey if you did, more power to you. Alternatively, did you embellish the story? I mean, I get that you'd want people to read so it makes sense to add a bit of extra flare.


 * Or, could it be you're just misremembering the events/falling victim to confirmation bias or selective memory? The story spans over 20 years so I don't doubt things have gotten hazy or don't quite add up.


 * Lastly, aside from this, do you believe in supernatural/paranormal?


 * Sorry to be contacting you but this stuff really sets off my OCD and anxiety so I just want to get to the bottom of it.


 * Thank you."

This was her reply.
 * "I don't really give a flying fuck if you believe it or not, to be Frank right back with you."

Any thoughts?--WMS (talk) 16:34, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * ?????? Why share it then if you don't want people figuring out your story? She's really full of it, and the idea that people with disabilities have some spirit powers is real problematic. Claiming to speak to the dead and not considering you might be wrong, it's also manipulative af and can easily abused to grieving families. You have to be making crap up and keeping up a farce if you try this. 16:57, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

MOTHERFUCKER!!!!!!
FUCKING HELL!!!!! 02:37, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Something tells me that the combination of "conservatives" and "Iran politics" go together like a hive of Japanese hornets and a pool of scorpions. 02:45, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah well, at least it's a democratic election. Also, it's only the polls, so there always could be a Dewey-Truman situation... although that could just be wishful thinking. Oh well. It&#39;s Farmhand, BTW! (talk) 05:25, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Democratic election?! (Fine, it's democratic enough for someone like Rouhani to come to power, but it's still miles off). Anyway, to the main point - why hasn't Biden undone Trump's Iran disaster yet? That's what's giving oxygen to all these radicals; the US needs to return to N-deal commitments first for Iran to gain a semblance of trust in it again. Meow Purr 09:18, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Apparently Iran is playing hardball in negotiations with their reactors etc. Can't say I blame them too much, what with Israel being so hardline and hacky-bomby against Iran these days, and the chances of another Trump-y president in the US future much higher than zero. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 12:36, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The latter is quite true. As for Israel, though, I wouldn't blame them, given that one of Iran's stated objectives is to destroy them. Meow Purr 13:38, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * And why is that? It seems like whenever the topic of Israel comes up you're defaulting to "Israel good" rather than trying to understand the motivations of all parties involved. This is a very... Modernist approach to international politics. 14:58, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Except the motivation of the Iranian mullahs is world domination as a long term goal. In the short term, they want the Shia to replace the various Sunni schools of thought as the main players in Islamic society.  With themselves in charge, naturally.  The Sunni Islamists also want world domination, but with themselves instead of the Iranians.  Thus the Sunni-Shia conflict going on, which of course makes strange bedfellows as each side allies with "heretics" they plan to betray when the time is right.
 * Israel only matters because they see reclaiming "Muslim" territory as part of the path to world domination. If it ever had anything to do with human rights, the Palestinian refugees would've been resettled by now. CorSock (talk) 15:21, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Somehow your view of international politics is even more simplistic... Every nation wants hegemony. All of them. Every last one. Why? Because it's the logical "safe" spot from whence they can advance their interests. Just as with business, so too with governance, and for many of the same reasons. I know it's hard, but try looking at this without your narratives or moralization. Perhaps you might truly learn to see. 15:37, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Most things in life are complicated. There's a myriad of different factions, Iran often ended up in situations because the people did things the leaders didn't initially want (e.g., the Hostage Crisis), random insignificant groups somehow cause events which forever reshape international politics (grand mosque takeover, Al-Qaeda), the world has always been crazy.
 * But sometimes, things aren't nearly that complicated. Not everyone wants to dominate everyone else, but there definitely exist those who do.  Different cultures have different ideals, which affect how many view domination as important.  The national identity of the US may involve Manifest Destiny and all, but when the US was given the opportunity to turn Europe into indentured servants of the US, it didn't.  Mostly.  Greece's military dictatorship was, well, geopolitics is a bitch.  Compare to the USSR, which absolutely did turn Eastern Europe into a bunch of slave-states for Moscow, with places such as Yugoslavia being the exception rather than the norm.
 * In the case of Iran, they don't want "hegemony" because it's "safe", dominance is part of their religious character. While I always have to note that Christianity has this as a core principle as well, I should also note that it's only Christianity and Islam that have "world domination" as a central point.  While there are of course Buddhist Supremacists out there, it's not a central value in the same manner.
 * As for the little people themselves, everyone getting along and being equal is not a universal value. It's certainly a value in Western thought, and also exists in other parts of the world, but there are large groups of people who view being equal to "heretics" as anathema.  Again I have to compare Islam to Christianity, but 16th century Christians would've been horrified at the idea of Catholics/Protestants having the same rights or positions in society, to say nothing of non-Christians.  This is how it is in Islamic societies as well; non-Muslims are forbidden from joining the military or owning guns for pretty much the same reasons Afro-Americans were forbidden in the South until the very end of the war, they have higher taxes, are explicitly "lesser" in court of law and witness testimony.  Simplistically, the people don't want equality, any more than a White Southerner wanted equality with a *N-Word*.  16:31, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, you're moron who drank the propaganda koolaide. I'll just ignore you then. 16:43, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Eh, the Buddhist nationalists of Sri Lankan and Myanmar certainly show that Buddhism isn't free of the tribalism phenomenon. At any rate, I don't necessarily blame Israel for being alarmed at Iran, either. However, to me this is one of those "all sides are bad" deals where it seems like there's a whole lot of shitty treatment, tribalism, and violence going on that hasn't solved anything for the past 70 years. You'd think maybe someone would use their fucking brains and stop wasting bullets and lives on this, and maybe work out a compromise somewhere. But nope, ain't going to happen. So meh. In the end, I wouldn't give any shits at all about the conflict, except as a United States citizen my tax dollars are helping to prop up this quasi-apartheid path Israel is going on. Even if it's clear that the constant warfare the US supports hasn't done jack shit. I'd feel the same if the US supporting a fundamentalist shithole like Iran (ask me about how I feel about US aid to Egypt and Saudi Arabia!), but in this conflict, we are not. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 16:52, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The US tolerates authoritarian governments, against its own values. The difference between Iran and Egypt/Saudia Arabia is the US publicly backed the deposed Shah. Iran poses no more threat to the US than Cuba. The closest thing the US foreign policy has to a consistent policy, is corporate interests. I wish the Ayatollah would support a massive de-escalation of tensions and reenter the nuclear agreement, but they don't exactly have a lot of confidence that they won't be in this exact same scenario with another GOP president. Why give up your one bargaining chip? Look what happened to Saddam and Ghaddafi after they gave up their nuclear ambitions.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 17:01, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yep. Iran is in the same spot as North Korea, minus a superpower to help prop them up. The Moderates seem to understand how fucked they are, and are willing to negotiate so long as they can publicly save face, whereas the hardliners are more... paranoid and unrealistic... 17:11, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * (EC) And it was Carter who stood by and let the Shah fall, and Obama that did the Iran deal. Trump may have backed out of the deal, but not after Iran got their assets unfrozen, so all in all they benefited from it.  Reagan and Bush I/II weren't too good for Iran though.  So yeah for Iran, Dems Good, Reps Bad.
 * As for Sri Lanka and all, yeah, there are pricks that are Buddhist, but it's tacked on to the Buddhism and just uses the religion as a cover. Buddhism itself condemns all violence, whereas the Bible and Koran actually condone or even outright encourage violence when done to non-believers.  Yes yes, religious texts can mean whatever the reader wants them to mean, but it's much easier to make the book say what you want when it already says what you want.
 * The problem with trying to frame Mid-East violence and religion in the lens on "religion being a smokescreen for geopolitics" is that it doesn't explain Iran's actions in the Iran-Iraq war. Within months of gaining power, before everything was solidified, was Iran calling for all the Shia in the rest of the Mid-East to overthrow the Sunni.  This was a monumentally stupid act because for a few months, Iran was beloved by the Sunni peoples for being a non-Western power who overthrew their Western-backed overlords.  Iran had more people than Iraq, sure, but their military was disorganized due to the various purges going on, and there was no guarantee that the war would be between only Iran and Iraq.  They had to make concessions to their military to get them out of prisons and into the battlefield, which resulted in the military having a lot more power longterm than the mullahs would've wanted.  Had the war spread to include KSA and the rest of the gulf directly, to say nothing of spillover from the Afghan war going on at the same time, there was a real chance Iran as a country itself would've been destroyed.  Instead the war just dragged on with no territory changing hands, and the Soviets, US, Germany, Israel, and everyone else backing one or sides.  Incidentally, Israel backed Iran in that war.  Strange bedfellows.  Oh, and the Iraqi chemical weapons were predominantly German, not American.  But the whole thing could've been avoided and Iran could've been a paradise had the mullahs not been so obsessed with dominating the Sunnis. CorSock (talk) 17:34, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Because there was nothing about wanting to dominate oil fields there, or exerting control over what was fairly recently their sphere of influence.-Flandres (talk) 17:46, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Even KSA progressed more with Vision 2030. Kevs  Ping!  17:54, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Where exactly did I say religion wasn't a factor? Of course the Mullahs as a faction have a religious/theocratic element, that's their main deal. The Hardliners tend to have this as well, though to a lesser degree. The Moderates, while religious, tend to make this less of a primary focus. The military as a faction is what they look like on the tin, a military. They want to win battles and secure a steady stream of recruits. But all of these factions have to contend with each other, as well as outside factions and the material realities of governing a country, meaning there are limits to what they can push, and most of the current crop seems to realize this, overtly religious or not. this means they're more likely to engage in political wheeling and dealing over blind ideological commitment. Well, except for factions like the hardliners. If you'd read the article I linked, you might have noticed the part where the Iranian upper leadership isn't too thrilled with the Hardliners of late, which means even the Mullahs aren't interested in blind ideological commitment at the present time. They want the sanctions lifted so Iran can come out of international political exile and freely trade again. This in turn would help stabilize their grip on the country. That in turn would advance their current long term ambitions of becoming a major regional power in the Middle East, competing with their current main rival, Saudi Arabia. 17:57, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * (EC) Oil definitely plays a role in geopolitics over there, but it's really more about Saudi oil for the US than anything else. KSA can't defend itself, and so the US had to go in to rescue Kuwait and the other gulf states, and had to station troops in KSA to protect it from Saddam.  Incidentally, the US troops in KSA was actually the number one gripe of Osama bin Laden, as evidenced by his 1996 fatwa "Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places".  In fact, Osama didn't ramble on excessively about the the US in Israel until 2002, in order to try and reframe the entire conflict away from the US supporting the Saudis. CorSock (talk) 17:59, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This is very much not a GOP v Democrat conflict. Partisanship used to end at the border. However Israel, specifically Netanyahu, weaponized partisanship by closely embracing the GOP, and Christian Zionists. Recently, Democrats have had to reckon with the fact that the same domestic movements for Black liberation mirror the struggles of many minority groups. The PLO even shares the same flag colors. Netanyahu made a calculation that by sticking with Trump, he could run out the clock and effectively kill any sort of solution to creating a Palestinian state because it wouldn't be supported by the far-right Zionists in his political coalition.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 18:18, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * An important thing to note here; Christian Zionists, especially those of Mike Pompeo's ilk, expressly support Israel as a Jewish state, because they believe it will bring about the Rapture, killing everyone there. not exactly great allies. -RipCityLiberal (talk) 18:28, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * And Hezbollah actually supports the existence of Israel insofar as they want all the Jews to run to one place so Hezbollah won't have to hunt them down. CorSock (talk) 19:17, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Speaking of nuclear stuff, here's a fun fact: When India got caught testing a nuke, they claimed that they were going to use the nuclear bombs for "peaceful purposes." It&#39;s Farmhand, BTW! (talk) 01:45, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "I wasn't testing weapons of mass destruction! I was, er... mowing my lawn and dealing with the weeds!" Moria  (talk)  00:11, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Keith Ablow
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Keith_Ablow This guy is crazier and a lot more hilarious in real life. He accidentally ran over his son's puppy and then made his son go to school immediately after. There was also a rumor that killed this lady. http://archive.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/02/27/fatal_fall_stirs_more_questions/ HairlessCat (talk) 18:34, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Normally I'd say that he didn't kill her, but the past year was the definition of unpredictable, so you never know. — Jeh2ow Damn son!  03:11, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Israel-Hamas Ceasefire
https://news.yahoo.com/israeli-security-cabinet-approves-gaza-193334309.html

Now maybe we can enter peace talks..............who am I kidding, it won't happen. --Канал 48 (talk) 21:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The occupation has been going on for seventy years. Three generations have lived through it on both sides. And this cruel status quo...is funded by US tax payers. Shabi  DOO  23:12, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * President Biden is optimistic about peace talks but considering that the Israeli PM is a lot like Trump the Traitor and is going down a dark path, I doubt it will happen. Not impossible but really unlikely. To make it worse is the fact that this conflict has major implications on international politics due to the religious and cultural significance of the general Palestine region (both the State of Israel, the State of Palestine and part of Egypt). --Канал 48 (talk) 01:03, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "part of Egypt"? Do you mean the Gaza Strip? That's not in Egypt, it's in Palestine but under the control of its own local authority, which is the only thing that differs it from Areas A and B of the West Bank in my opinion. Harry Potter (talk) 14:55, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I meant the region of Palestine. The Palestine region consists more than the State of Palestine. --Канал 48 (talk) 19:33, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * So you mean the State of Israel, State of Palestine (including the entire West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip), and the Sinai Peninsula (which is in Egypt)? Harry Potter (talk) 19:40, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes that is what I meant. --Канал 48 (talk) 20:29, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Saw a profound video on race relations and perspective a couple months back:RW feedback
https://youtu.be/MhHpuj0rJho I came across this video on YouTube a couple of months back and its one of my personal favs regarding race. I guess as a way to pay homage to the one year passing of George Floyd, I felt rhat i should share it and hope it can give people some perspective on race relations,racism, and what black people have gone through in the United States. I know its a little long and a bit outdated as this was in 2018 beforethe George Floyd murder but would love to hear feedback on it. Skip to 11:20 to hear the start of it. (He’s done a couple different versions of this each semester period check out the channel for more updated versions)SensaurC-137 (talk) 21:30, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

So I'm now having to teach by video conferencing
The pandemic has finally got real for me. All schools in Taiwan closed for a "circuit breaker" on Wednesday 19 May and will stay closed until at least Monday 31 May. Although from watching the situation in my native Britain, I know that two weeks can easily turn into six months or a year.

So I'm having to teach by video conferencing. And so far, predictably, it's been a bloody fiasco. I had no idea that Zoom videos were mirror images so any writing I showed the students would be backwards. Half the students have turned up 15 minutes late or not turned up at all. Some students I could see but couldn't hear. Some students I could hear but couldn't see. And, of course, a load of time was taken up by asking, "Can you hear me?"

And the worst part is I don't even get to work from home. I have to go into my school and do it from there with my horrible boss watching over me all the time and telling me I'm doing everything wrong. Yesterday, she laughed at me for having bought a little whiteboard to use inn Zoom classes, saying you don't write on whiteboards over the internet. This afternoon she told me to write on the whiteboard (obviously forgetting it would show up backwards). She denied having told me not to write on a whiteboard earlier and told me to prove she'd said that. That wasn't the first time she's gaslighted me and it won't be the last.

How ever long this lasts, it's going to be too long for me. Spud (talk) 12:30, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If you don't have any online whiteboard technology, you could try using Notepad in large font and share your screen. Surprise to hear that Taiwan hasn't locked down sooner-did COVID pass the country by or did they crack down quick enough so that the country was mostly COVID-free for the past year or so? IveBeenFrank (talk) 13:27, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There is a setting to turn off video mirroring. If you launch the zoom application directly, it's under settings -> video.  I don't know if that's helpful for you, but I hope it is. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒   talk  13:35, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your advice. I might mention that to my horrible boss's slightly less horrible husband tomorrow.


 * Yesterday, I used Zoom. This afternoon, I used something else. JoiInnetwork.tw or something. That does have a virtual whiteboard and other features. But I much preferred Zoom. I had far fewer problems with that. I'll tell my bosses tomorrow. But I doubt it will cut any ice. Assuming this "circuit breaker" does come to an end on 31 May, I really won't need any extra features. The textbook I'm using recycles vocabulary a lot. I won't need to use visuals to introduce any new vocabulary for a few weeks.


 * Both of your guesses are true to an extent. Taiwan shut its borders at the start of the pandemic. But I really think that, to a certain extent, Taiwan has just been lucky. As of this Monday, there had only been 12 Covid-related deaths since the start of the pandemic. And that's on an island the size of the Netherlands or New York State with a population of 23 million. There have been some measures in place for a long time. It's been compulsory to wear masks on public transport pretty much since the start of the pandemic. It was compulsory to wear them in indoor public places since December and it's now compulsory to wear them outdoors at all times too. And Taiwan still isn't in a full lockdown. Non-essential shops are still open but cinemas and amusement arcades are now shut. Maybe Taiwan needs a full lockdown. As this BBC news story says, Taiwan got complacent. Spud (talk) 14:06, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * How's the vaccine availability there? 14:26, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Not very good apparently, just like in almost every Asian country, even in the rich ones like the Republic of China. GeeJayK (talk) 14:32, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Did you actually ask your students whether the text was mirrored? Supposedly the mirrored text only applies to one's view of oneself. Bongolian (talk) 18:56, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't ask. Oh, well. I really don't need to show them much text. The reason I bought the little whiteboard was because I haven't done numbers above 50 with one of my groups yet. We're on page 94 of the textbook and I was planning to write the page numbers on the little board, just as I normally write them on the regular board. But it doesn't matter. They all know  numbers above 50 anyway. Funnily enough, at the start of Wednesday's lesson, I used the board to show them we were on page 88. So that would have worked mirroring or no mirroring. Spud (talk) 22:51, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I sympathize. In all the time I worked as an employee in the English teaching world I never once had a good boss. There is a disconnect between the "making money" side and the "actually teaching people stuff" side. And, in my experience, the making money side is often very cynically prioritized. The people actually doing the teaching bit are just a really inconvenient overhead.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:04, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, . Good to hear from a fellow TEFL professional. However, both my horrible boss and her slightly less horrible husband come from a teaching background rather than a money background. He still sometimes teaches English and she regularly does. She hasn't got the first clue about English teaching, though. That's one reason why I have zero respect for her. But the main reason why I have zero respect for her is just because she's such a horrible person.


 * The problem is that she has a personality disorder. She just has to disagree with everything I say and do. Not just about English teaching but everything. For example, I once said in front of her that there's no scientific evidence for the existence of ghosts. And she said, "Actually, there is." She didn't back that up, of course. Nowadays, I avoid talking with her about anything at all as much as possible.


 * And of course, when she heard that my sister had suddenly died at the age of 42, the very first thing she said to me was, "That's probably because she ate badly like you." That's pretty definitive proof that she's a horrible excuse for a human being. Spud (talk) 12:51, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * She does indeed sound like a profoundly terrible person. It must be difficult having to relate to her. (Or rather trying to not to relate to her).
 * In English teaching I went freelance after a few years, and I retired a couple of years ago. So I'm no lo longer at the chalkface.  Good luck with your internet classes - I managed to avoid that option.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 13:01, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

A bit of an update
School closures and other restrictions in Taiwan have been extended until June 14 so I'll be teaching by Zoom until at least then. Fortunately, my bosses allowed me to use Zoom rather than the much worse alternative they tried to get me to use. I'm now doing it away from the constant gaze of my horrible boss in a different room. She doesn't like being in the same room as me any more than I like being in the same room as her. She still listens in, though, and occasionally shoves her oar in. One of my students, a 13-year-old girl that I teach one-to-one, did much better in her Zoom lesson than she does in her regular lessons. That would be because usually when I teach her from 5 to 7pm she's already had a long and difficult day at school. When I taught her this evening, she'd been doing nothing all day. Spud (talk) 13:45, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

"We are witnessing a crime against humanity," says prize-winning author Arundhati Roy on India's COVID catastrophe.
Link to piece here. It makes for a good read. I thought about adding it to WIGO Blogs or Coronavirus, but it was published almost a month ago. It's still very relevant today, since it discusses an ongoing event. G Man (talk) 11:58, 25 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Duh, I dislike this finger-pointing, whoever does it. The fact is that whatever strategy has been tried, whichever country was doing well or worse at the start - nothing changed in the end, this virus is claiming us all. Trump and Bolsonaro were clearly inept, but apart from them (and China for the cover-up), we shouldn't point fingers at people until this thing gets over - we're all in this together, and must recognise that fact. Meow Purr 16:52, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Harry Potter (talk) 16:20, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Personally, I think it's a little bit of both: incompetent populist leaders have made the situation much worse that it needed to be in far too many countries. However, a lack of international cooperation has been frequently cited as a reason SARS-CoV-2 keeps spreading. G Man (talk) 18:06, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Came across a really bad "documentary" about HIV/AIDS from 2004
The Other Side of AIDS

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0427614/

Much like Plandemic, this wonderful waste of film equipment spews denialism and actively encourages HIV/AIDS patients to stop taking Anti-Retroviral medications.

Safe to say that we need much better science education because of Germ Theory Denialism. --Канал 48 (talk) 00:27, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * the director's 3 year old daughter died from complications of untreated AIDS, as did the their wife (prominent interviewee of the film and noted denialist) who continued to promote AIDS denialism up to her own death tells you all need to know about their claims. if only it were only the promoters of this denialism who face death from their campaigning. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:16, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * reading up on this is thoroughly depressingly and has really killed my mood. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Sad that pseudoscience like this is spreading like an actual virus. Then again I watched a Professor Stick video in which he rips apart a video that encourages people with Diabetes to stop using Insulin among other medicines for it and treat their illness with an herb. Professor Stick said over and over that you should listen to your doctor and only stop using medicine if advised. --Канал 48 (talk) 00:49, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Theft is the second sincerest form of flattery (Lithuanian edition)
There appears to be a Lithuanian site that has copied large chunks of RW and autotranslated the pages into Lithuanian. Bongolian (talk) 07:52, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed, unfortunately it's probably of really shitty quality i.e. no better than Google Translate. If one were to translate it back, even manually, I suspect that you would just get loads of gibberish that doesn't make any sense. Harry Potter (talk) 10:51, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Challenge accepted. 13:50, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd rather any machine translations of our articles be on another website rather than here. Spud (talk) 14:04, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * We don't know they have done it badly. For that matter we don't even know if it was a machine translation, it's just someone's supposition. And even if it was a machine translation and it was done by native speakers then, for all we know they may have cleaned it up.   Furthermore the ones I briefly checked out came out OK in English. The only thing that we could really complain about is that they didn't follow RationalWiki:Copyrights. Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:34, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That's odd. Is BUDAHAZY.org the same thing in Hungarian? Or am I going cross-eyed?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:47, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Bad machine translation is my guess. They translated English spelling reform and apparently translated most if not all of the English words discussed in the article, which would be a sure fire way to produce Lithuanian gibberish. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 16:24, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I am now wondering whether this might be some kind of new project testing machine translation. After it was pointed out that translated versions of our content were available in many other languages, I had a look at some of the French versions.  The translation method did not recognize that it was being fed French from our original page 'Tarot' Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 04:08, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

is this something rwf would need to deal with or is it just an interesting occurrence ie. no legal issues worth addressing? AMassiveGay (talk) 16:40, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It is illegal due to failure to attribute the source. Regular copyright law gives translation rights to the original copyright owner. Whether RWF wants to pursue the issue or not is another matter. Bongolian (talk) 17:26, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Would be difficult for me to know whether they are attributing the source or not, my Lithuanian is not good enough to tell, Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 17:41, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Our copyright statement does not ask for attribution. Only distribution the same licence - if I'm reading it correctly.
 * And I agree it is a question for the board. I kind of doubt it's that important.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:30, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The RationalWiki:Copyrights page links to our CC 3.0 license, which states, "Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made." Bongolian (talk) 18:52, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

If you scroll down a bit, their front page currently features a link to a translated Bar archive from 2011. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 19:02, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * And if you scroll all the way to the bottom, you can get translations in a whole bunch of different languages! Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 19:07, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That explains why I was seeing other languages. I'm just looking at "Don't feed the troll" in Spanish. Their text reads: "Alternativamente, en RationalWiki, los usuarios pueden ingresar mostrando esta imagen: ...."Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 19:52, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I guess they are not pulling this of our servers and then translating it on the fly? Because if they are that would be a server issue for us.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 19:56, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No idea, man, but checking some of the other links, it looks like they're ripping content from Pew Research as well. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 21:39, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If they're pulling stuff from RW servers in real time and translating it on the fly, then wouldn't new edits show up quickly on their versions? That would be a viable way to test the theory. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒   talk  21:59, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It doesn't look like it; their JonTron article doesn't seem to have the last change. (The section in question is "Atsakymo vaizdo įrašas" in Lithuanian, I think.) PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 22:54, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

the Church of Scienfoologists Questing for Religious Liberty, Sincerely
Found this gem today. Thought someone might appreciate the read! http://www.churchofsqrls.com/ Kauri0.o (talk) 23:47, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Preview video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6xE9oeG1o8

A Greek alert for my upcoming video "Vampire Attack EAS 2: Balkan Calamity" --Канал 48 (talk) 00:34, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Question relating to transgender people (not attempting to sound stupid)
I heard the term t-girl and t-guy when referring to transgender as a shorthand version of the word. Is this appropriate to use when referring to transgender people? I heard the term from a place that I won't disclose. --Канал 48 (talk) 21:37, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The trans people I know generally consider it fetishising (the term comes from porn) so it's best avoided. Evilatheistheathen (talk) 16:41, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Probably not a great idea to use such terms, primarily because no one will know what you are talking about. I don't think it is an insult. It is just over familiar. UncleKrampus (talk) 02:13, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I usually don't use identity politics, so I don't point out that people are trans. And don't even get me started on those who aren't male or female. I just assume some random person is normal because chances are, even if they are trans, they're normal. — Jeh2ow Damn son!  12:40, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that the terms might be recognized in primarily trans or LGBT+ settings, but otherwise I wouldn't use them in other settings. They seem to be somewhat obscure, from what I can tell. TheJakeHolmesVersion (talk) 15:28, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I never actually met a trans person in my life (at least not that I know of). --Канал 48 (talk) 23:25, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If and when you do meet a trans person, just ask what you should call them, they'll probably be more than happy to clarify. But I wouldn't go around calling them t-girls/guys in casual conversation. Princess Mononoke radio contact 12:57, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that as a rule people prefer to be called by their name, pronoun or term of address (doctor, professor), not by a label. If it's appropriate to identify someone's identity, wait until they identify themselves as such. I have known a trans person and I have only referred to her by her name or pronoun. People like to be thought of as people first. Bongolian (talk) 20:50, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I was not trying to sound like a jerk. I want to learn. I meant by t-girl in like "Jess is a t-girl". Please understand that I am not trying to be stupid. Knowing where I live it is unlikely that I would meet a transgender person. My area is the heart of Michigan's Trumpland. --Канал 48 (talk) 20:42, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Theodore Dalrymple
Have we done anything debunking this guy? I don't know much about him but from what I do know one of his books linking the cause of crime to a lack of personal responsibility is mainly made up of anectodal evidence rather than hard data. Considering how common this viewpoint is and how little criticism of him I can find should we make an article about him? Evilatheistheathen (talk) 16:47, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I read a couple of his books a few years ago. He definitely needs an article. even if he does have some interesting insights he does sound like a crank to me. GeeJayK (talk) 17:30, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah I agree he does sound like a crank. My reasoning for asking was I was half thinking of writing an article about an Irish wingnut who I'm more familiar with who is a fan of his work and I was looking for criticism of him. The wikipedia page and a google search didn't bring up anything so I figured I'd ask here. Evilatheistheathen (talk) 17:47, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know this guy or his work. Looking at his WP page he seems to have written at least 28 books in the last twenty years and is a physician and psychiatrist. Connecting crime and personal responsibility is a variety of the free will concept. It is not a crank idea. Like God, either one accepts it or not. Personally, I prefer not reading dozens of books just to review a bunch of conservative narratives. That's not fun.UncleKrampus (talk) 04:27, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't know a lot about his work as a physician (though he does talk about it on his book), but he does write about philosophy and social sciences too. I think after Roger Scruton died last year he became the most important conservative thinker in UK. As I said, he's not appaling, but he does have many cranky idea. For instance, one of his book is called "In Praise of Prejudice". The name might sound terrible, but the idea is actually interesting, he's not supporting racism or homophobia here. But his anti-immigration position, views that welfare state make people lazy, and ideas of cultural decline are missional. GeeJayK (talk) 15:08, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * His fearmongering about teh evil librulz aswell is a fairly good example of a persecution complex Evilatheistheathen (talk) 18:32, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I have read one of his books, about toxic sentimentality, and remember agreeing with his take on Sylvia Plath. who probably should also have an article in her own right, if she doesn't already. Most of the rest dealt with media in the UK with which I am much less familiar. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 15:39, 27 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Just as a matter of definition, crank ideas are ideas that few people accept as reasonable and those who do accept them are consequently called cranks. Conservative ideas =/= crank ideas. One may extend the meaning of "crank idea" to include "bad ideas," "unethical ideas," "revolting ideas," "dad's ideas," etc. Still, when speaking to the world at large, a crank idea is one that almost no one assumes is true. For example, as much as I would like to call the claim that Trump won the 2020 election a crank idea, technically it is just a big lie. UncleKrampus (talk) 22:11, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed but I would definitely classify a few of his ideas as crank just from looking at the Wiki on him. For instance, his idea that "addiction is more a moral, cultural or spiritual problem than it is a physiological or medical one" idea is contradictory to medical consensus. He even wrote a book with this framing. The book generated some strong retorts including a scathing review in . Popularity is not necessarily a disqualification for a crank idea per say, for instance I would consider the anti-vaccination movement cranky despite its popularity due to its wanton disregard of expert medical consensus. Likewise, I would say the same for someone ignoring the neuropharmacology aspect of addictive substances. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 22:40, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That's interesting. He appears to take the postmodernist POV about addiction: "Dalrymple's proposal that heroin addiction is a moral and spiritual problem seems to me to be outdated, although it is unfortunately still held by some." Here we see the idea of behavior being medicalized almost meeting Foucault's view. Not an uncommon view. This, again, smacks of the free will problem. When you disagree philosophically, that's the most accurate way to talk about it. UncleKrampus (talk) 01:31, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If we have an article about Ben Shapiro then I don't see why an article about this guy would be off mission. By your logic we shouldn't have an article about him either. Evilatheistheathen (talk) 15:55, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No one said not to write an article about him. Certainly I did not. I just doubt it would be an interesting one, unless you intend to settle the question of free will, of course. That would be good.UncleKrampus (talk) 21:44, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

January 6 was an inside job
Now that's a conspiracy I can hold on to. Mainly because it actually happened. — Jeh2ow Damn son!  18:49, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you prove it please? Harry Potter (talk) 10:49, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Any details of any "inside jobness" will come out in good time. My personal suspicion is that such is limited to possibly some cooperation among certain genuinely "low-information" Republican Congressional types like Marjorie Taylor Greene, and certain types like "America's mayor" who have lately been drunk on excessive amounts of Russian vodka. Most Republican politicians these days are more or less servants of "low-information" rich assholes who can't think beyond their next personal income tax break, and basically kiss the ass of wannabe-kleptocracy-overlord Donald Trump because he is inexplicably popular with certain "low-information" voters. Using Trumpism to narrow democracy in favor of rich assholes is one thing. Actually supporting embarrassing rubes who were stupid enough to riot for Trump is another. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 12:57, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Haven't you heard? "The largest undercover force the world has ever known is the one created by the Pentagon over the past decade. Some 60,000 people now belong to this secret army, many working under masked identities and in low profile, all part of a broad program called "signature reduction." The force, more than ten times the size of the clandestine elements of the CIA, carries out domestic and foreign assignments..."  Ashli Babbitt's alive and well living in Mesa, Arizona under a new name in the witness protection program.   Now the federal government has to pay out millions in a wrongful death settlement to her family to keep the story quiet. Dutchbag (talk) 21:10, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Are there any more reliable sources than newsweek that mentioned this alleged secret army? Unless newsweek is a reliable source, not heard of it before and just the red top is making me skeptical--WMS (talk) 18:53, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Another US heinous crime to shame ALL americans
after being shocked sometime ago to hear that the Jam were all but unknown in america, i discover that the stranglers have similarly been criminally ignored.

Shame, America, Shame. AMassiveGay (talk) 08:52, 28 May 2021 (UTC)


 * We all know the song "Golden Brown" from the movie "Snatch". 14:50, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Anyone who followed punk music and/or listened to the college radio stations knew about them. Honestly, punk bands, or even punk bands that became something else, never got really mainstream in the US until Nirvana opened the "alternative music" floodgates in the 1990s. There are a few exceptions I can think of, like The Clash, but not many. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 15:56, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * American pop music is about creating a song that everyone can tolerate even if no one actually loves that song. So you'll end up with some bland song that does nothing interesting, but isn't painful to listen to.  Except when it is; I like some rap music, but absolutely despise a pop song that switches to some rapper's grating spoken voice for just one bridge and is never in the song again.  16:47, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * all i will say is Jimi Hendrix had to cme to UK. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:59, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Didn't you guys kill him though? 17:08, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Honestly it isn't really a competition. On punk, a United States band pretty much (which is pretty much sped up more distorted garage rock that all ties back to the blues, but never mind that). Which the UK imported, and made more aggressive and more pissed off songs (at first). Then Americans took that and made it even more aggressive, even more pissed off . (On the louder, faster end, though, a UK band pretty much, which a lot of American metal bands adopted in the 1980s, so it all works out.) Meanwhile, after a period of anger, some UK punks became depressed and became . Or some UK punk bands morphed into , which is also where a few of the NYC bands that played with the Ramones at CBGBs got lumped in as well. It all ties together in the end, everyone gets influences from many things. However, new wave music is the only part of this family tree that really ever got mainstream popularity in the US. New Order is probably an instantly recognizable name for anyone who grew up in the 1980s; Joy Division isn't.  PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 17:42, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * As I understand it America also invented a genre called . Sadly I have never listened to it and that must explain my miserable, Christ-free existence.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 19:39, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This reminds me of my goto retort whenever an old person complains about the music on the radio.
 * Old Shit- "The music on the radio is terrible!"
 * Me- "Who would have guessed that cutting public school music departments would have consequences" 20:10, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * ok boomers, America has moved past rock. Dutchbag (talk) 20:57, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Honestly, a disproportionate number of my favorite bands are from Canada; they seem to take the best of both British and European music and turn it into something their own. My top 3 are Rush, Death Angel, and Into Eternity, the only American one is Death Angel and they're a really odd one in a lot of ways; they deserve far more attention than they get, they've only gotten sharper and harsher as the years go on. But yeah, Canada also produced Neil Young, Gordon Lightfoot, the Guess Who, and Joni Mitchell. Must be doing something right there, though in fairness they also unleashed the horror of Dan Hill and Anne Murray on us too. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい ) 00:06, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

its just surprising to me when i think uk and us culturally similar enough and feeding of each other that something that seems an almost ever present feature of british music for so long would have at least some kind of presence stateside beyond 'oh that tune in that film, or advert'. enough of of presence to understand how much cooler i am because i like this or that band. i was genuinely appalled though when i heard some music journo youtuber say they like this 'obscure british band called the jam. you should check em out' and i been listening a lot to stranglers the last couple of days an discovering they just obscure stateside. not as surprised as hearing the jam not a a deal there, but still. its just interesting to see who was big and where. its like seeing how culturally alike or apart the us and uk is to one another.

at the very list i would like people be able to acknowledge that i am too young to have heard my musical preferences when they were hip and new. i werent even alive when the above clip was recorded. in my formative years, your taste in music defined who your mates are and your identity. when my mates were no longer my mates, i found my taste in music was their taste not mine. only kids listen only the latest tunes. eventually you'll mainly listen to the stuff from that period where it seemed to you the most urgent. or at least its what you'll keep coming back to. thats a period where i lived for someone else. i have no nostalgia for it. ive had to seek out the music that i like and reflexively keep coming back to. it feels contrived. i like what i put on the radio, but there is a little bit what i think it says about me that i listen to a particular band or song or whatever.

i like two tone ska. late seventies /early 80s punk/new wave. i like the anarchy of the punks but with the sharp moddish suits of the ska scene. i like what i think that tells people about me (if they knew i was listening to this stuff at all). most of all i would like it at least be an indication i could chill in bed and listen to some tunes with someone after sex, and it not be ruined by each others music making our ears bleed, ruining any sort togetherness or as a potential soul mate/life partner.

dunno what i trying to say really. musical taste is entirely subjective but felt so visercally its jarring when reminded of that subjectivity? that the uk and us are not the same? or how can i flatter myself over how hip i am if people knew that i think rasputin by boney is the greatest musical achievement in the history of the world?AMassiveGay (talk) 15:15, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Translation
So, I've realized that I'm not actually very good at writing articles, however, I'm good at translating English -> Spanish

Is there any guidelines I should read before translating an article? I know from articles like España that you should include a hat note with a link to the English version as well as use Template:LangBlock for making sure that screen readers users can listen to the article. Is there something else I should keep in mind? Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 17:49, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * languages is the page you’re looking for. Not much to bear in mind, just stuff you’ve already mentioned and obvious things like don’t rely on machine translation. Christopher (talk) 17:58, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm a native Spanish speaker, so I think I can make good translations Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 18:01, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Question: How would you feel if you found out that you were the direct descendant of a royal family from ancient times such as Alexander the Great or Cleopatra?
I honestly would not know as to how I would react if I found something like that out. It would be neat. --Канал 48 (talk) 23:21, 26 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Excerpt from the movie Monty Python and the Holy Grail:


 * King Arthur: I am your king!


 * Woman: Well I didn't vote for you!


 * King Arthur: You don't vote for kings!


 * Woman: Well 'ow'd you become king then?


 * King Arthur: The Lady of the Lake-- her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. THAT is why I am your king!


 * Man: Listen: Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government! Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some... farcical aquatic ceremony!


 * I am related to Douglas MacArthur. MacArthur was an American five-star general and Field Marshal of the Philippine Army. At the age of 44, he was promoted, becoming the Army's youngest major general. MacArthur was known for being at the front portion of battles and not the rear like most American generals did. Israel officers lead from the front too and the Israelis have a great track record in modern battles. MacArthur was valedictorian at the West Texas Military Academy where he finished high school, and First Captain at the United States Military Academy at West Point, where he graduated top of the class of 1903. During the 1914 United States occupation of Veracruz, he conducted a reconnaissance mission, for which he was nominated for the Medal of Honor. In 1917, he was promoted from major to colonel and became chief of staff of the 42nd (Rainbow) Division. In the fighting on the Western Front during World War I, he rose to the rank of brigadier general, was again nominated for a Medal of Honor, and was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross twice and the Silver Star seven times.


 * Speaking as an American, being related to MacArthur who advanced himself in a meritocracy is far neater thing than being related to royalty. It inspires me to push myself harder. Orange Conical Thing (talk) 00:54, 27 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I would not be amused. I'd be interested - but mostly in the tracing of my ancestors back to that person and wondering about the many and varied lives they lived, and the tenuous links we choose to bind us.  But not amused.  Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 02:28, 27 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I'd rather be a direct descendant of the British Royal Family! Then I can become Pascal Sauvage, threaten the Queen to abdicate by aiming a gun at her corgis and turn the entirety of Great Britain into a prison! Perhaps a certain handsome actor playing Johnny English could stop me... Moria  (talk)  03:18, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I was Cleopatra in one of my past lives. So was pretty much everybody. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 04:22, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm descended from Charlemagne. Spud (talk) 04:44, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm descended from pond slime. Racism BTFO. Fedora Wearing Midwit (talk) 10:05, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm quite sure that all the royals and their progeny fucked so many peasant-girls that absolutely everyone and their mother is a member of all the old royal families, there's just a few self-absorbed assholes that think being the eldest male child of a psychopathic sex-offender warlord makes them better than everyone else. In reality, the royals are so inbred and with so much more focus on "politics" than actual health of the offspring that any Eugenicist worth their salt would have every last "Nobleman" castrated for the benefit of Mankind.  14:27, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * david cameron made a big deal of being descended from william the conqueror. its less of big deal when you realise professional cockney danny dyer is too AMassiveGay (talk) 14:34, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There's a widespread theory that every president except for Martin Van Buren is a direct descendant of King John (not sure if that includes Biden), and while some of them (like Andrew Jackson) are on decidedly shaky ground I'm very distantly related to Obama (through his mother's side) and the Kennedy clan through my mother's side. Theirs are two of the more definitively proven family trees. What to make of it... I don't know, other than it's somewhat interesting family trivia. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい ) 15:02, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * im not so distantly related to bonified 1%ers. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:08, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I mean, if you really think about it, we're all related to each other somehow. G Man (talk) 17:39, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Not all of us, skinjob. 18:51, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Given the number of by-blows, and even descendants of legitimate younger children spreading into the general population (and Genghis Khan is in the family tree of 'many, many people' in Eurasia) probably a significant number of people are somehow related to royalty. Anna Livia (talk) 08:26, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Rejoice! We are all royalty! So we are all special - and so nobody is special.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:15, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The descendants of Cheddar Man probably have the best claim.
 * Will exclude claimed reincarnations of royalty (Genghis Khan etc). Anna Livia (talk) 17:28, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * being royalty or not is of no consequence. if you are on the civil list is what makes being royal worthwhile. unless you like useless titles and bullshit protocol. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:32, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * My mom’s family is from China, so I have a good chance of being a very distant descendant of Genghis Khan. 03:24, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Being descended from ancient royalty would really be just a random fact you could bring up at a party or something. It's not like you get to claim some throne over it, or anything else that would give you a tangible reward. How many bloodlines of that vintage are even relevant today?-Flandres (talk) 03:35, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If you were descended from ancient royalty (with "ancient" meaning 2000 years ago or so) it means everyone else in the room is also descended from that person. Peter Ralph and Graham Coop released a study in 2013 that demonstrated that if you had a recent ancestor who is from Europe, then with almost 100% certainty you are descended from Charlemange. This has been a subject of discussion that was, in part, triggered by books like Holy Blood, Holy Grail which claimed there were some descendants of Jesus alive today. The thing is, if there was a real figure Jesus, and he had descendants, and his lineage survived to the present day, then the number of descendants could be rounded off to "Everyone on the freaking planet" (the rounding error accounts for very isolated groups like the North Sentinelese). A Numberphile video (seen here) gives a simplified explanation to why that is.

Has anyone got any refutations on this
I've noticed that no-one has covered this artice agaisnst lenski's results. &mdash; Unsigned, by: Mackyboy123 / talk / contribs

Mackyboy123 (talk) 13:06, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The argument, basically, is that since most mutations are disadvantageous, and since development of beneficial traits is likely to require multiple mutations, the development of these traits is so improbable that evolution is false. The author notes that if you could rewind time back to the very beginning of life, and let things play out again, it is likely that things would not develop in the same way.  This is true: random mutations are random, and natural selection can only place pressure on phenotypes that already exist.  There are multiple issues with the argument.  First, evolution is not  goal-oriented: that it is unlikely to yield a perfectly optimized organism due to the number and type of mutations required to get from what exists to what would be best, is a poor argument against it.  This is really an attack against a strawman version of evolutionary theory.  Second, while a random mutation is likely to be disadvantageous, the sheer number of living organisms provides an enormous number of opportunities for mutations, such that developments that would be highly improbable for a single organism become quite likely, given enough time.
 * A major focus of the article is Lenski's observation that there seems to have been a "potentiating" mutation in the cell line that developed the Cit+ phenotype. That is to say, getting to the Cit+ phenotype required two mutations from the original line: one that did not grant the ability to efficiently transport citrate, and a later mutation, encouraged by the first, that did.  The author's claim is basically an argument from incredulity.  Most 2-step routes from the original population to the Cit+ would involve a disadvantageous intermediate step, which would be selected against.  This is true.  However, it is possible that there is some beneficial intermediate, which would be selected for.  Furthermore, it is possible that there is some near-neutral intermediate, for which selection pressure would be attenuated, enough for the mutated line to last long enough to develop the random mutation necessary for the Cit+ phenotype.  I call the author's claim an argument from incredulity, because their argument is essentially that this is so improbable that it is impossible.  More charitably, their argument is that this (and similar cases for the development of cellular structures in general) is so improbable, that evolution is probably false.  Again, this is a poor argument, because there are many living organisms (consider the sheer number of bacteria on Earth), which makes up for the low probabilities.  Furthermore, species living today already have the benefit of billions of years of evolution; for the earliest lifeforms, the odds of a particular mutation being beneficial would have been greater, simply because they would have been less well adapted to begin with.  Finally, evolutionary theory has enormous explanatory power, and is supported by an enormous body of evidence.  A good argument against the claim that the two-step development of Cit+ is so improbable as to be not worth considering, is that it has, in fact, already been observed. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒   talk  13:31, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I apologise in advance if I misunderstand what you said or the paper, I am not a biologist and I can barely understand these arguments, but I thought that the premise of Behe's argument was that the ability to digest citrate in the E. coli was already there, and the mutation just simply removed a hinderance to doing so. ``` all of the beneficial mutations identified from the studies so far seem to have been degradative ones, where functioning genes are knocked out or rendered less active. ```

``` wild E. coli already has a number of enzymes that normally use citrate and can digest it (it’s not some exotic chemical the bacterium has never seen before). However, the wild bacterium lacks an enzyme called a “citrate permease” which can transport citrate from outside the cell through the cell’s membrane into its interior. So all the bacterium needed to do to use citrate was to find a way to get it into the cell. The rest of the machinery for its metabolism was already there. As Lenski put it, ``` So the mutation wasn't one that added a new ability to digest citrate(Which would be new genetic information and would give the lie to creationist concepts), but simply one that removed one. Again, if I have misunderstood anything, please correct me. 51.148.181.72 (talk) 14:00, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The first quote's significance is difficult to parse. He uses in in reference to the arguments made in his book, but in the article he doesn't really go into detail about what he means by it, so I think its tangential.  The latter quote is a bit more technical.  In the interior of the cell, E. coli already has everything it needs to digest citrate.  However, E. coli cannot efficiently transport citrate into the cell from outside, and so cannot survive on citrate alone.  A citrate permease is a protein that can efficiently transport citrate into the cell; the development of such a protein is what Lenski observed.  When it happened, the evidence was a sudden and rapid increase in the E. coli population in one of his flasks (which turned the liquid inside cloudy).  Lenski's flasks contained low levels of glucose and high levels of citrate, so that the effective food supply vastly increased for the bacteria with the mutation.
 * I take the crux of the argument from the concluding paragraph: "If the development of many of the features of the cell required multiple mutations during the course of evolution, then the cell is beyond Darwinian explanation". This is a poor argument, at least against the modern theory of evolution (whether it is a viable argument against the theory as initially put forward by Darwin, I don't know, but it isn't really important).  The structure of the essay suggests to me that the Lenski experiment is mostly being used to introduce the significance of "multiple mutations", by reference to the 2 mutations apparently involved in the development of the Cit+ phenotype in Lenski's experiment (the evidence for this comes from follow-up experiments by Lenski, which found that clones taken from the relevant E. coli sample past generation 20,000 were much more likely to develop the Cit+ phenotype than clones taken from before generation 20,000).  Above, I mainly respond to the claims made about multiple mutations.  With regard to Lenski, the author is largely just citing what Lenski himself has said, to set up his argument that Lenski's interpretation of the data in evolutionary terms is misguided, and that a non-evolutionary explanation is more appropriate.  The article doesn't go into great detail, though, because the author wants you to buy his book. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒   talk  14:43, 29 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Oh, I think I understand now. You are saying that just because two step beneficial mutations are rare doesn't mean they won't occur in nature because of the sheer amount of time and the numbers of animals involved. The thing is that YEC keep insisting that never has there been found a mutation that produces new genetic information(I'm not fully sure what they mean, but it seems to suggest a mutation that produces a completly new trait in an animal, such as flippers being turned into feet). I wanted to understand if Lenski's research was a mutation generating new genetic information or not. Mackyboy123 (talk) 15:35, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Creationists tend to strawman the idea of mutations. For example, one of their talking points is that mutations can only add, not subtract. So a prehistoric snake evolving a lack of legs isn't a mutation, according to YECs. Further, you have the likes of Ray Confort who demand absurd things such as "crocoducks", which are so far outside actual evolutionary biology as to border on farcical. 15:40, 29 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Ok then, so where do I get a non-strawmanned understanding of mutation. https://creation.com/mutations-new-information . I read Dawkins TGSOE, but that didn't have much info on mutations. &mdash; Unsigned, by: Mackyboy123 / talk / contribs
 * Depending on what your current understanding of mutation is, it could be beneficial to just have a read of What exactly do you mean by “information”? Christopher (talk) 16:00, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Let me put it a little more clearly. I was taught by YEC that mutations only decreased the genetic information inside the genome, therefore it couldn't provide the genetic information in order to go from a less complex ansestor to a more complex ansestor, it just variated with the information that God put inside the genenome. I'm trying to understand if that is true or not, so I found Lenski's experiment. It seemed to suggest new information in the DNA of the E. coli, so I was just looking at that. As for what I mean by information, I think creationists mean genes that perform specific functions. For example, natural selection needs genes to work on, but can new ones arise through mutation?Mackyboy123 (talk) 16:10, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * “Information” still isn’t properly defined, but I don’t think it matters here (yet at least). Lenski’s experiment is an example of new information, and the article you linked doesn’t attempt to dispute that fact. Maybe it’s mentioned in the book, but I haven’t read it. Do you have an example of creationists arguing it isn’t new information? Christopher (talk) 16:25, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I might have misremembered creationist arguments concerning biological mutations. I.e. whether they argue that mutations can only add or whether they argue that mutation can only subtract. It's been a while since I checked so if I got it wrong I apologize. 18:45, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This is actually covered in our Richard Lenski article.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 19:32, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * To respond to your ideas about information, I'll go into some detail. There are many types of mutation.  The simplest involve single base-pairs.  One nucleotide may be substituted for another in a substitution.  However, a nucleotide can also be inserted into an existing DNA or RNA strand, or one can be deleted.  Larger scale mutations can involved shifting or duplication of large sections of the genome.  Many plants, for instance strawberries, are polyploid, and can have many copies of their chromosomes.  Small-scale mutations are often categorized by the effect they have on protein sequences.  Christopher is right that the Wikipedia article on mutation is a good resource, but depending on your background knowledge it might be a bit difficult.  In short, though, yes, there are mutation mechanisms that can produce new genes. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒   talk  22:32, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If anyone's more adept at/qualified to explaining it, now might be a time to mention that many alleles/versions of genes are functionally neutral or have an undefined selective pressure set against them due to parallel functions in other genes, most mutations aren't bad. Way I understand it is that there's room to screw up at this point because of that: a lot of recessive genes persist and evolve because they're not hurting the population badly when some poor kid inherits two regrettably flawed instructions for making hemoglobin: of course this isn't true for small/inbred populations. Artificius (talk) 02:31, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

COVID bioweapon theory is back in the news
https://lifehacker.com/why-is-everyone-suddenly-talking-about-covid-19-escapin-1846994795

Bit skeptical about it. In my honest opinion in terms of COVID being used as a weapon, China would likely use a naturally occuring virus as to avoid being investigated. Keep in mind that I seriously doubt it but it could be possible. --Канал 48 (talk) 02:16, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I commented on it in the COVID talk page. As your article notes, the consensus still seems to be that a deliberately made bioweapon is very unlikely. I think lab sloppiness is more what's being investigated, though I get the impression not a lot of people are convinced about even that theory right now. Of course, this allows the political bullshit to spin up again... sigh... PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 02:22, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * To be fair why wouldn't would a country want to use a bioweapon that spreads widely, as opposed to being excessively lethal? By that I mean using a virus that kills most people that get it, isn't going to work that well as few people will get it. Harry Potter (talk) 13:05, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Again I am skeptical of the bioweapon theory. Lab negligence is more likely. --Канал 48 (talk) 16:26, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It was likely leaked from a lab, though I think it was an accident. China's still mostly responsible, though, they kept pretending everything was fine. If they hadn't, then we would've three more months to develop the vaccine. 15:53, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * How exactly would you get 3 more months to develop the vaccine? China first reported the virus in December of 2019, and released the genome sequence mid-January in 2020, when vaccine development began. Even if the virus first appeared in mid-November as the article (and the US report it is based upon) claims, that's only 2 months from when the genome sequence was released, and it takes time to find out that this is a new virus and to sequence it. Though a lab leak is possible, I also haven't seen any evidence that it is any more likely than a natural animal-to-human transmission. Sbcuser (talk) 17:32, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

How come we don't hear about the wrongdoings of allies in WW2?
War is not black and white, I understand there's no "good" or "bad" guys, just different shades of grey on the morality scale. After doing some research, I have found that the allies weren't as perfect as we'd like to think, they did a lot of bad stuff and war crimes were committed too. What I find odd is that doesn't really get talked about, I mean we talk about the atrocities of the axis forces but it feels like the wrong doings of the allies get glossed over, is it because people just naturally prefer to simplify these things into "good vs. bad guys" narratives?--WMS (talk) 18:39, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "History is written by the winners", of course, but personally, I've heard a fair bit of debate on the bombing of Dresden, the Japanese American internment, the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and . One issue I do see is that these atrocities do seem to be less in scale compared to the Holocaust and even during this period; I've noticed when talking about war crimes during this period, Italy and Mussolini, for all the faults this country had (and they did ), seems notably absent from these type of discussions at first glance.  PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 19:07, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * They only get "glossed over" in layman and non-academic discussions. In terms of professional historians, they don't seem to have this problem as a rule of thumb. 19:22, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is highly debatable in terms of being wrong or right. In the wrong part, hundreds of thousands of innocent people died. On the right side, more people would have died because the war would have continued for a much longer period of time. Again, life is morally grey. --Канал 48 (talk) 20:05, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

for the most part, the allies werent occupying armies during ww2. less scope for ethnic cleansing or reprisals against a hostile population. where official policy like carpet bombings and atomic bombings as ww2 crimes, theres debate on whether they are war crimes at all or unfortunate necessity of ensuring victory against genocidal aggressors. shooting surrendering prisoners or rape probably more about ill discipline more than deliberate policy. i dare say people looked the other way.

when we say allies though, do we include the soviets or we just talking the western allies? theres lots of talk about war crimes by the soviets. cover ups denials and the like. and thats the thing with allied war crimes. its all debate from professional historians down to whatever political points you trying to push. stuff happened but the crime part not concrete. the axis powers war crimes? there was courts and testimonies and verdicts. victor justice and all, but still definite judgements against definite war criminals - no lesser of two evils for most of the stuff that culprits were executed for.

also is the holocaust a war crime? crime against humanity sure, but that took place before and during the war but not same as a war crime, no matter how horrific. its probably splitting hairs on that point and theres probs a legal official answer to that, but theres nothing comparable in allied war crimes debated or accepted to the holocaust whhere is just so so so much took place that allied atrocities even if fully fleshed out in meticulous detail, would appear as glossed over in comparison to all that took place as part of the holocaust. (and the nazis meticulously documented alot of it too) AMassiveGay (talk) 01:58, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * So, sorry if this is a bit of a tangent but I feel allied soldiers raping Japanese women in post-war Japan fit into this discussion somehow.-Flandres (talk) 02:00, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , The Holocaust was both a crime against humanity and a war crime. It was a war crime because it was conducted by and largely implemented by Nazi German military against civilians. Bongolian (talk) 02:20, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There is quite a bit of discussion on Allied war crimes, and the Allies were definitely the good guys in that war. 02:30, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Firebombing and the atom bombs were horrific war crimes. Most Americans seem to defend the firebombing of Japan (400,000 targeted civilians) and the atom bombs (about half as much). Most of the rest of the world is horrified by the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. In comparison, there is a much more two sided debate in Europe about the ethics of the firebombing over Germany. The fact that there even is a debate at all, is sad...but at least there is a debate. Targeting civilians in war is indefensible. There is nothing admirable about countries which are loathe to apologise for past wrongs or even admit that some of the things they did were even potentially over the top. Just look at Turkey's stubbornness over recognising the Armenian genocide. They think they would seem weak and barbarous to admit it...but in reality denying what happened makes them appear weak and barbarous to us. That's how most of the World sees America's inability to truly confront the atom bombings of Japan. We don't hear about it because either people don't think they did anything wrong, don't want to admit they did something wrong or don't even want to talk about it. Shabi  DOO  02:48, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Shikata ga nai. They didn't teach the mass-rapes in Japan by the Americans and Aussies, learned that on my own, after my grandfather said some... things.  Anyway, literally 1/4 of American servicemen were hospitalized with gonhorrea or chlamydia, while for Aussies it was 5/9, to give you a reference as to how much was going on.  Initially it was consensual, sort of; there was literally nothing left of most cities, and prostitution was the only way to put food on the table.  The whole thing became an embarrassment to the Japanese government, so they outlawed prostitution, and then the reported rape rate went through the roof.
 * Bear in mind that this was actually tame compared to anything the Russians did; there's a reason that after having been nuked the Japanese still chose to surrender to the US instead of Russia. There was a disturbing chance of being raped in Japan, but in Germany and the rest of Eastern Europe, it was a guarantee.  Furthermore, it was not a good idea to be openly German for obvious reasons, so something like 10 million ethnic Germans were relocated/dispersed to the rest of Eastern Europe and had their identities erased entirely, which is why you'll find a surprisingly high number of blue-eyed blondes in Kazakhstan and the Ukraine, all of which will insist they were ethnically "Polish" or something else.  03:06, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I feel like that is not entirely consensual. Power imbalances and such. EDIT-missed the part where you pointed that out. Sorry!-Flandres (talk) 03:09, 30 May 2021 (:


 * I’ve always been pro-atom bombing of Japan. It was the right thing to do to end the war. But we’ve all been through this before, so I’ll drop it. 03:12, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * i can give a pass for the 1st nuke, it was after all less devastating than the firebombing of tokyo. the 2nd nuke? we know they were going to surrender. they were discussing the terms when they we hit them with the first nuke. the hold outs didnt want to fight to the last man they wanted to force a negotiated surrender. we'd offered safe guards for the emperor, and that looked was enough. we can never know because the we nuked them again before they could accept our terms. what i known i that invasion of japan was only feasible in one part of japan. and it was only feasible some months in the future (in spring i think, i'd have to check). those forces in china and elsewhere where fleeing back to japan if possible or diverted to slow down the russian advance which as due to halt in after a couple days anyhow. no military action was imminent. no lives were in immediate peril from a bloody invasion or brutal japanese occupation. there was no hurry. but we nuked them again mere days after the first. before it could even be registered they had been nuked. if they'd waited for the japs to organise their forces for the invasion planned months in the future, one nuke would have obliterated any defence and be an actual military target. the invasion would be unresisted. we dont know what would have happened only what did happen. two nukes and the surrender made mention of them.


 * i'll give a pass for the first one but the second one, we knew there was no hurry. we knew they were going to surrender, we knew they were debating the terms. everyone knew a bloody invasion was months away. we dont know the 2nd nuke was necessary because we didnt wait until last minute to drop it. if they had waited, we still wouldnt know if that was the only thing that brought them to surrender. fear of the russians or balking at a bloody invasion they had no hope of resisting would have been just as likely. we wont know because we didnt wait to find out. we dropped the second bomb and they surrendered and said the bomb helped make the decision. thats why they dropped the second bomb so soon. to make sure the bomb got the credit. it wasnt yet necessary to drop it to save lives and they didnt bother dropping it on the gathering japanese forces defending against invasion. they dropped it just see what it would do to the specific terrain of nagasaki that differed from hiroshima's and make sure the world and russia know sole credit goes to the nuke for ending the war. the 2nd nuke was the us waving their dick in the russians face. any other reason we could have waited. we did not. AMassiveGay (talk) 05:04, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Sex and war is actually an interesting topic. In France, due to the embarrassment of less Germans having been killed by French bullets than venereal diseases (ok, slight exaggeration), the French banned their brothels and prostitution.  The American Civil War is an interesting case as well.  This was the first major war in the US since the widespread implementation of the photograph.  You had hundreds of thousands of young men, away from wives and girlfriends for months, so a less talked about phenomenon is just how ubiquitous Civil War pornography was.  Of course, the war dragged on and on, and soldiers did what soldiers always did; pillaged and raped.  After the war, this was all blamed on the widespread availability of all this porn, and not the fact that it was a bloody civil war where the generals were less concerned about keeping the enemy civilians happy than having enough soldiers to win.  Thus, the US's Comstock Laws, and the US being so anti-porn when compared to Europe.  03:18, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * was photo porn a thing by then? I thought that was the point where you still needed to photo dead people since exposure times were hours long and needed total stillness. 03:21, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * By the Civil War era, you only needed to hold a sexy pose for about 20 seconds, which nude models for painters already had no problem doing. Interestingly, pictures of White women tended to have them doing random everyday things while naked, whereas pictures of Black and Native women were a bit raunchier.  The fetishization of Black women as hypersexual creatures is, sadly, nothing new.  03:34, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * rape and war - there seems to be difference in rape during wartime where it making use of an occupied population and rape as a weapon of war/genocide. its all horrific mind, but what we can learn from such events and how we might prevent future events might differ. i mean comfort women involved sexual slavery by japanese of those considered inferior races for their own gratification. rape during bosnia conflict such as the Srebrenica_massacre - getting ones jollies was not point but terrorising, brutalising and with a genocidal intent. this is awfulness of differing kinds, awful in differing ways no less awful from each other. there are differences in turning a blind eye to it all, to official policy. im not sure a lack of jazz mags has ever been a significant factor AMassiveGay (talk) 04:01, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Obviously, the access to porn isn't what caused all the rape, but it's a great example of some scary new form of media being blamed for some recent atrocity, and it's important because it explains just why the US has the attitudes it does towards porn and so forth. 18:54, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that indiscriminate bombing of civilians has never been prosecuted as a warcrime AFAIK - so de jure it isn't one - not since when - 1915 or 1916?? The British didn't prosecute Zeppelin or Gotha pilots....  regardless of what the various conventions might say - the bombing or Rotterdam and Warsaw pretty much set the scene for WW2 - not nice f'sure, against the "rules" - probably - but then ignored by everyone. Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 10:46, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello everyone. So I never wrote in this section before but I am obsessed with WWII and therefore feel I can contribute to the discussion, please don't kill me for wrong formatting. I feel like the title of this discussion is not wisely chosen. First of all, as mentioned above, it throws all the Allied nations together which kind of obfuscates the whole issue for me since not every nation has the same "share" of atrocities, or the same kind. I also don't think there is anybody seriously suggesting that there is a single nation that fought in this war that had no "wrongdoings" or atrocities commited by some of it troops, be it individual acts of violence or atrocities commited by groups or through policy etc..

I think there is debate about "wrongdoings" by Allied nations and I have certainly heard several "atrocities" mentioned. Some of them have already been mentioned above. What has also been mentioned is the fact that those "wrongdoings" are quite known of in academic circles (by which I don't mean to imply that I am an academic and you should listen to me). I have heard of all of the examples above before and of still a lot more. I feel like the platitude "such is the way of war" rings true in this case. There is something that stands out for me though and this is one thing that I think is a very crucial difference between most of the Allies and most of the Axis actually. The war crimes of the Axis were part of their political long-term goals. The Axis commited the war crimes explicitly BECAUSE it was what they wanted to achieve unlike some of the Allied war crimes or "wrongdoings". If you look at the ideological reasons for the German invasion of the Soviet Union for instance, and if you look at the strategies employed and the resulting casualty numbers, it becomes quite clear that the mass murder of the Jews and the Polish/Russian populace WAS the goal of the war and not a byproduct. The firebombing and "strategic" bombing of civilian population centers was defintely a questionable move, but it still had a sort of strategic goal aside from the personal lust of revenge, and that was to strike at the capability of the Germans to produce, be it by bombing facilities or by bombing the workers. The strategy came as a result of being drawn into a war, it was not the actual goal of the war which was to defeat the Axis. Again, I don't mean to say that this excuses all Allied actions. It does explain however, why when talking about WWII atrocities, the Axis are more central to the discussion.

Another thing that seems more than a little ironic to me is the fact that when one talks about rapes in WWII, and bear in mind that this is only anecdotal evidence of course, I have heard debate and discussion about Soviet rapes, US American rapes, Japanese rapes, French colonial troop rapes and so on and so on, but very little discussion about German rapes. At least in Germany, which has a strong tradition of remembrance, I have actually never heard a public discussion about this. Yet, some estimates calculate that up to a million children have been born in the eastern theater from rapes by German soldiers. []

A lot of points have been made in this thread and I can not possibly comment on all of them, but lastly I wanted to say that I feel there is a trend, especially in the U.S. out of all places, to relativize crimes by the Wehrmacht that feels almost like a revival of the clean Wehrmacht myth and that hides under a pretense of historical neutrality but which is really ahistorical and politically motivated (though this might not be the case for everyone and is often subconscious I think). Thanks for reading and have a great day. NastyNugget 13:03, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Being a verb
Just got me thinking that since we change so much some would consider us verbs. Though I know that's nonsense because a verb without an object (as far as I know) is meaningless.Machina (talk) 06:04, 30 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Not every verb requires an object, and the fact that verbs in English require a dummy subject (It's raining - who or what is raining?) is more a peculiarity of English grammar than anything else. If I want to be a part of speech, I'd want to be an interjection, preferably a profane one. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 15:47, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed. You can certainly have a verb without an object. "The boy ran."  "The man died." It's the subject (if only implied) you can't really do without.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:41, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Verbs in most languages (certainly all Indo-European languages) are divided into transitive and intransitive verbs (some verbs can behave as both in different contexts). All verbs need a subject in English but intransitive verbs do not have objects. A difference between the two:
 * Transitive verbs like "hit" must have an object. A general test is, can the sentence I + verb stand alone?
 * (*)I hit
 * Doesn't work. You are naturally waiting for further information (what do you hit?). Some verbs are intransitive such as to ache. I ache. My finger is aching.
 * Some verbs can behave as both: "to hurt".
 * Intransitive: He is hurting
 * Transitive: He hurt me.
 * In some languages a verb can actually be without a subject (it's vaguely like the sentence "to be or not to be" though it is a lot more complicated. So in fact verbs don't even need subjects in some languages as they do in our family of languages.
 * Humans are nothing like verbs. Verbs are descriptive. Humans are not. Shabi  DOO  17:43, 30 May 2021 (UTC)


 * In all honesty, I was a bit confused about this. Humans... as doing words? I hope I do get the metaphor of forever changing and forever 'doing', but perhaps there is a better way to put it, one less confusing. Moria  (talk)  22:42, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I think people are missing the point. While we do in fact change all the time it doesn't seem correct to label us verbs.Machina (talk) 23:19, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That doesn't seem surprising to me. Verbs are a part of speech.  When I look at this pencil in front of me, I consider it to be an object, but I do not consider it to be a noun.  The act of writing is not a verb, only the word write. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒   talk  23:34, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If you want us to get your point then you should explain it better Machina. Your argument as per why humans aren't verbs was because verbs require "objects".Many verbs don't require objects. And even if all of them did...that is still a pretty strange and confusing explanation per why we aren't verbs. We aren't verbs because a verb is a part of speech. Humans are not. As a metaphor it is a terrible one as well (many verbs have nothing to do with change but are entirely descriptive, especially the most commonly used verb in it's most common usage "to be" as a copula). Why would you badly explain something and then tell everyone they are missing the point when you haven't made any other point except the bad explanation that confuses people? Shabi  DOO  00:05, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * "I think people are missing the point. While we do in fact change all the time it doesn't seem correct to label us verbs" It is hardly surprising that people would miss the point when the point is frankly incomprehensible. The statement reads like the output of a badly-programmed chatbot.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:07, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Michael Flynn wanting a military coup like Myanmar: nothing like advocating a terror plot to install a dictator
When I heard that, all I thought that Flynn guy was nothing but a traitor and terrorism advocate. I get that the United States has its problems but attacking democracy and the values the US is supposed to stand for is just sickening. I just can't wrap my mind around his thought process. --Канал 48 (talk) 21:15, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It's easy if you believe in Dominionism bordering on fascism. -RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:57, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It would make perfect sense if a person is an idiot and hates democracy. --Канал 48 (talk) 20:08, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Flynn said this at a QAnon convention... so much of the above applies. One Slate article seems to think that his decline began after being out of a Defense Intelligence Agency director job. Rather sad if bitterness over that led him to getting overdrunk on the Russian vodka propaganda and falling into the QAnon hole. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 20:30, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Goat
Minecraft have goats. https://www.minecraft.net/en-us/article/caves---cliffs--part-i-has-release-date- 68.0.188.149 (talk) 16:45, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The writer of that article is a goat hater. SHAME! 16:46, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Is this what gaming journalism has come to? Smh smh /joke FrancoUnamerican  Talk to me I guess?  17:26, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * About damn time. Any Minecraft players here, maybe someone could build a shrine to RW (with ample goats?) 18:08, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Is there honestly any hope for humanity?
I'm sorry, this is just something of a rant on my part. It's just, I'm just perpetually frustrated with humanity in general. Some days, I just think that the world is just some bleak, awful joke and all we can do is laugh along with it. To just fly somewhere hot and sandy, prop up a beach chair, and watch mankind tear itself apart. Obviously, I recognize that there is a greater purpose set by God. But sometimes it's so damn hard to see it, you know? Hamas launching rockets at Israel over a couple of houses. The British starting a bloody war with an African tribe because a general wanted one of their footstools. Honestly, I sometimes wonder why God doesn't sic the apocalypse on us already and start from the top. At least that would be mildly entertaining, if only on a cosmic level. 00:58, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You always have the hope, of course, that humanity can (and with some lasting stability) overcome many of our serious flaws, but I certainly wouldn’t bet a lot of money on it. I frequently wonder what kind of life there is on other planets. Did intelligent life emerge from something other than natural selection? If not, did any of them manage to emerge without the crippling bi-products of the evolutionary process? We’ve reached an astounding level of scientific knowledge and wealth and yet half the world lives in borderline deprivation, the majority of women around the world are treated as inferior things and it seems like our planet will be on fire in a century or so. My life is alright. Billions of people’s lives aren’t. That makes me sad as a fellow human and I would imagine if other being were around, I’d be embarrassed to be a human too. Shabi  DOO  00:59, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This is why I just don't believe that it's feasible or plausible to avoid climate change, and that rather than trying various remedies to change its course, we should instead be preparing for it as something inevitable. Let's face it, any plan to alter its trajectory will involve serious and costly sacrifices for an uncertain, long term payoff.  In your heart, you know that will never work. The very presence of icecaps anywhere is in the long view an anomaly in the history of the planet.  I am only happy that I won't be around to see the mess we made, or the recriminations that are surely coming.  Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 03:21, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * its been a while since britain started anything in africa. even after brexit i like to think we have progressed a lot since the scramble for africa. if something from our days of empire is what has you damning humanity, an empire thats been gone for decades, and even that isnt anything specific but something you made up, im not really convinced of your 'oh the humanity' hand wringing. the state of parts of africa today has to make you lose hope with humanity. parts of asia, europe, the americas, everywhere, there is something that shakes any faith in mankind you have. if you've been paying attention.


 * its not the whole picture though. theres less war than there has ever been. we live longer than we ever have. we can cure all kinds of diseases, prevent you from ever catching them even. you can make contact with people with all over the world, instantly, and never leave your home.


 * i take tablets everyday that stop me from dying from something 10 years ago would have been a death sentence. last week i got vaccinated against something that last year no one knew existed. no one asked me for cash for any of this. i am given my medication because i need the medication not because i demanded it or promised anything in return. i did not even have to ask to be vaccinated. they phoned me up offering it to me and to book me in. nothing asked for or expected in return.


 * i know i am lucky, that elsewhere in the world i'd be dead in a ditch. too much of the world is not so fortunate. but you know what? even in the poorest of places there are people working to make things better. providing clean water. vaccination programs. education. its hard work, underfunded, dangerous for many, but its not done by people looking to get rich, but by volunteers. poverty and disease and war wont vanish over night. there are not any quick fixes for age old problems. there is too much hardship in world and progress is too easily stalled or reversed by a few. but there is progress, generally.


 * you look at war and see people firing rockets. you are looking at the wrong people. look at the people digging people out of the rubble, treating their wounds, and feeding those who have just lost everything. some of us look at woe in the world and wish for a flood to wash it all away. others try do something about it.


 * if god could raze it all to ground, it could just as easily prevent all the war and poverty in the first place. if the state of the world saddens you, look to yourself not god. do something about the wrongs you see. you might be gladdened to find others already are. AMassiveGay (talk) 03:29, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yet nothing changes. Despite all the people doing "good" it's really just band aids for what we essentially started. Humanity is more divided now than ever before, it's easy to pass lies as truth with the internet now to the point that it's now the loudest mouth that is correct. People cluster in the internet silos and feed of each other rather than question. In the past a nut would be shut down by others but now they can gather and reinforce their views. Vaccine mandates are getting repealed because idiots and a president made the worst parts of our country feel validated. Education keeps getting cut despite society needing more advanced degrees and automation is going to quickly put most of the population out of a job. Not to mention the pandemic showed just how backwards humanity is and how woefully ill prepared we are for disaster. Too many companies didn't want to work from home or take precautions.


 * Humanity is a doomed failure because they keep repeating the same mistakes over and over again and there is nothing you can do about it. Because to do something about it requires large changes to complex problems and no one wants to do that. People can't even agree on what restaurant to eat at. There hasn't been any progress at all. When one division mends another rips open. Best advice is to enjoy what time left we have on this planet. I'm really sad to see it go but such is the price for our actions. In many ways, we deserve it. Humanity is far to stupid to survive.Machina (talk) 05:59, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 200 hundred years ago you could own another human being and even the wealthy had to shit in a bucket. within my life time ive seen in my country as a gay man go from a place where being spat at in the street was a common occurance to being able to marry another man. many parts of the world still have many problems. change is slow, it is difficult. but there is change. there always has been. its complete bullshit to pretend there hasnt been any. the rate of change is almost exponential and consistent since the invention of the printing, and the microchip ushered in a whole knew world that internet is further revolutionising. i am not just talking bout technology but social change too. its inaction that dooms us and its a self fulfilling prophecy. if you want progress get your head out your arse and help make it happen AMassiveGay (talk) 06:50, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * A lot of the world is in this sort of strange, bipolar place, isn't it? On the one hand, technological progress is happening fast. Climate change is no longer thought of as the shrieks of a few scientists and environmentalist hippies (back in the days it was called "global warming" or "the greenhouse effect", nobody in the corporate world gave a shit about the subject. Now, ESG funds are hot shit on Wall Street). In a couple decades, I can envision some technologies to help climate change in wide use (from the grand, like the electrification of passenger vehicles, to the arcane, like minimizing the damage to the atmosphere from the humble cow fart). The developing world, too, is improving faster than you think.
 * On the other hand, yes, the same old tribalism and retrograde shit happens; while much has improved in the developed world in particular, it's not perfect, and there's enough dying rumbles (often obnoxiously loud rumbles in America) from the common clay to make politics "interesting" at the moment. It's worse in developing nations, including a helluv a lot of bullshit in China, the big up-and-comer. Whether the climate technology will be enough to prevent major issues in the future, I don't know -- humanity adjusts to weather, but some are in better positions to adjust than others. And yes, developed world capitalism in at least some places needs to be adjusted to have better safety nets / be less unequal, and be more women and family friendly. Some places (Europe) are better than others (US, Japan) in this regard at the moment. Many developing nations are another story entirely, while some are improving rapidly, some aren't.
 * I think it's horribly incorrect to say there hasn't been any progress at all though. I'll speak from the America perspective... anyone who has read about the Jim Crow era (or even the Red Scare HUAC bullshit or Stonewall) knows that America has improved *a lot* socially in 60-70 years. And climate? Fuck, 50 years ago in America,, over-simplistic poisons were killing off our (among other things), and you were slowly killing your brain every time you breathed in whiffs of car exhaust due to  they were adding then. Frankly, the main surprise is that there are a few people that actually defend some of the nastier elements of this era for some reason. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 13:48, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

There still hasn’t really been progress though. Technically you can still own another human being but it’s not really outright slavery so much as a job. Racism never went away it just became more hidden. Technological progress has always been a net negative so I’m not sure what you’re saying about that being good. Seems like every month I see another wooded area of where I live being cleared away for some complex or other building. There aren’t any wild areas left. The few that are become choked with trash. LGBT people went from being hated by society to eating themselves as they are a group with the most infighting against each other, it’s honestly embarassing to hear “we” when the truth is anything but. Not to mention there is no such thing as privacy anymore with the amount of data you’re forced to cough up “or else”. Don’t even get me started on smartphones, those things are doom. Every time I go out and walk the crowded areas you see people on their phones walking, even when they are eating at a restaurant they’re all on phones. People are insulated from the world around them. And yes the environment has been worse off since the 60s-70s. There is more talk but no one listens or cares because any change is uncomfortable. College is more than an arm and a leg and you can’t find a good job without a degree in a decent field, assuming you even find one. Things have gotten worse because the big problems are still there and aren’t leaving and technology has only made us more ill equipped to deal with it. You say things have changed but nothing has, it’s still the same as it ever was. There is no exponential change. Humans may have new toys but they still haven’t fundamentally changed in order to avoid disaster. I would argue that racism and LGBT issues don’t matter if there isn’t a planet to live on, so no humans have made zero progress. Focusing on trivialities instead of the big picture.Machina (talk) 14:01, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * you are delusional if yu think having to work a job is anything remotely like slavery. you view of the world is incredibly myopic and insular. strange you so convinced there is no real progress in the world. i thought you werent even convinced anything actually exists at all. i can see change happening all the time. ive seen antivirals and prep have made those living with hiv able to not just survive but live their lives without fear of being treated like lepers. i look at my phone and i see hundreds of trans people who a few years previous were virtually invisible. racism stil with us, always will be, blm in america is happening right now because technology makes camera phones ubiquitous capturing police brutality for all see so it can no longer be swept under the carpet. you are technology as force for change happening right now in blm protests. climate change wont end the world but will make things harder but its still not certain we cannot avoid the worst of it. despite trump much ahs been pulling together. its only question if we can act fast enough. its only climate change were this is a problem because the threat of climate seems so distant. the pandemic on the other hand - had your vaccine yet? covid is but a year old and theres already a vaccine. every one is on their phones? sure, probably too much, but they are isolated by that they are connected to world through the things. catch up old man, you sound like my dad. the world is passing you by if you cant deal with how life is lived by people today. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:16, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Funny I look at my phone and see trans people being eaten by the LGBT community, mostly by bi and gay people. HIV aid still a four letter word and people still won’t date you for having it so that hasn’t changed. Working a job is pretty much slavery since you don’t really have a choice in the matter. Without it you can’t afford anything and I doubt people have the hunting skills to get their own food. It’s essentially slavery, albeit by our own choice. BLM aid the worst of civil rights and the movement has essentially collapsed because they don’t know what they want or how to go about it. Camera phones being prevalent is the problem, again there is no privacy. Everything is on display for the world to see. People take pictures of strangers without their consent and post it online for ridicule or content. Who cares if the police can’t hide (spoiler they still can) if the rest of us are more or less just animals at the zoo? You can’t do anything without someone documenting it. BLM has not been a force for change so much as it set back change by being the mockery their opponents claim they are. Climate change will end the world, knowing how delicately things on the planet are balanced people greatly underestimate it. We cannot avoid the worst of it because nothing has changed for it. People still don’t take it seriously. We can’t act fast enough because people don’t care. All they do is take to online but that changes nothing. The only reason COVID had a vaccine was because of money, not because people actually cared. You are getting way too ahead of yourself. And you are delusional if you think people are connecting. They aren’t. People are isolated in their own little worlds even with people right in front of them. The amount of times I have gone out with people only for them to each be on their phones while sitting across from each other and not saying a word is too much to mention. I think you’re the blind one if you think technology is a gift. Phones aren’t connecting people they are isolating them, not to mention making driving more hazardous than it is. Honestly, what world are you living in because it sure isn’t the real one.Machina (talk) 16:17, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If you think there's no point to continuing, kill yourself. Seriously Machina, I mean it. To live is to suffer, to exist is to be imperfect, and to change society is to fight an uphill battle. Will there be setbacks? Yes. Will there be backsliding. Probably. Will humanity choose the dumbest course of action most of the time? Very likely. But, as the French philosopher Camus pointed out, such is the absurdity of life. 16:32, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It's kind of strange whenever I see anti-technology rants made using the technology of a wiki. It's not like some of the things (privacy rights, the racists that push back against BLM) aren't issues, but concentrating on the negative does on no good. To give but one hint, you haven't read enough about the impact of BLM around the world if that's what you think. BLM has been mocked, for sure, but the mockers have also been mocked. Change is a slow moving slog, but it happens. It's better to chill, I think. Sit back, relax, and (if you are into it, of course) smoke some good ol' MJ. Which, if you haven't noticed, is a lot more legal than it used to be in 1970. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 17:27, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I honestly think BLM did more harm than good. Also I have no intentions to off myself, I just admit that humanity is doomed.Machina (talk) 18:13, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No shit Sherlock. Pardon me for my bluntness, but after so much repetition I lack the patience for niceties. Your junvenile mockery of nihilism aside, every serious philosopher since the fucking 1700s has known this and moved the fuck on. Even fucking nihilism has moved the fuck on. Life is pointless and stupid, yes fucking AND!?!?!?!!?!? 18:32, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you two. I think that for all our gaping flaws, mankind is a tenacious thing, and not beyond redemption. We're capable of both terrible evil and of works of unparalleled goodness, truth, and beauty. I guess I was just voicing my frustration without any real reason other than to get it off my chest. 18:25, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, why the hell shouldn't having AIDS be a perfectly valid reason not to date someone? If finding a partner who is ok with HIV is such a burden for you, they make dating apps and websites for that.  18:48, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Here's my list of valid reasons not to date someone;
 * They do, are, or have anything you do not want.
 * Relationships are not the same as jobs, you are allowed to avoid a relationship for either the most serious or the most petty and banal of reasons, and you never need to justify your reasons to anyone. No one is entitled to a relationship with you; that entitlement is literally the core idea of "Rape Culture".  You can be as picky as you want.  Don't want to date men?  Tough shit for men.  Don't want to date Yankees Fans, Black people, nailbiters, poor people, the elderly, those with kids, the disabled, bald people, glasses wearers, the disabled, Trans*, AIDS, brown eyes, people who think Buffy > Firefly, vegans, Muslims, Atheists, truck drivers, well, tough shit on them.  It also works the other way; no one is required to date you in return.  19:03, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * what the fucking shit are you talking about? really what the fuck are you talking about? who are responding to with that fuckheaded rant of ignorance? really who? whos been talking about an 'entitlement to date anyone?' please point me to where that was asserted, to what set you off, because i cant seem to see it. it almost if you pulled out your fcking arse. oh please take the time to learn of the difference between HIV and AIDS. i doubt many folk with AIDS are looking to date because they are likely to be fucking ill AMassiveGay (talk) 00:33, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think he is responding to Machina, who said a bit above: "HIV aid still a four letter word and people still won’t date you for having it so that hasn’t changed". 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒  talk  00:48, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, was responding to Machina's post above, it hit a number of my pet peeves. Someone else already mentioned the bit about "slavery", so I didn't bother.  04:57, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * i apologise for flying of the handle. i wrongly assumed you had read too much into something else. for the record i have no issue with with HIV being a 'deal breaker' for someone. but with an undectable status and/or PREP, the is no fear of infecting someone for who it isnt. and Machina's view of the world is an insular one and far universal. (its really not difficult finding a partner if you HIV) AMassiveGay (talk) 14:05, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't want to give the impression that humans are completely irredemable. I did start off my text with "you always have the hope...". The humanist democratic west has certainly lived an experiment the world has never seen before, advanced democracy, a set of rights previous civilisations would have thought impossible, equality in theory (barely in practice but more equality than in many previous civilisations), the welfare state with healthcare and relatively generous social programs in just about every western country except the US, an end to the death penalty and a massive cut down on retributive justice (again the US is something of an exception there), LGTBQ+ rights, high level of wealth and social altruism (though this is very patchy). Yeah...there is a higher level of kindness and giving a shit about others than in most previous civilisations. But behind the thin veneer of it is still horrific inequality, de facto slavery for a portion of the population, no governments seriously dealing with the massive threat of disinformation and online anti-reason, massive corruption, an environmental and pollution apocalypse that isn't being addressed and in some countries a slow chipping away at these rights and principles. All of this is so super mega fragile, they can fall apart with the smallest set of sparks and it's back into the kitchen women, back in the closet queers, keep your mouth shut atheists and hello tribalism and bloodshed. I'm not saying that onward progress is impossible, I simply think it would be naive to bet much money on this not falling apart or giving way to something ugly in less than a century (at least for some Western countries). Of course I'd give my own life if it meant humanity kept developing stronger democracies and rights and equality. That's the dream. But humanity has seen social/political experiments fall apart in a flash in the past...and it took a very long time for another set of experiment to reemerge. Shabi  DOO  19:49, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Please actually read Nietzsche before you start to profusely jerk off about how your life and existence are pointless. Techpriest (talk) 19:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, have a little image that might be useful to take to heart here. Xkcd_nihilism.png Techpriest (talk) 20:25, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Masks
okay, can somebody 'splain this? A year ago we were told that mask wearing was not to prevent you from catching the virus, but rather because you may be an asymptomatic carrier with no symptoms, and a mask was a sign of respect and concern for other human beings and so that grandma wouldn't catch it. There was no testing, so nobody knew if they were a carrier or not. Now, if you're vaccinated, meaning you've been injected with the virus, who cares who you spread it to? Are we really all that stupid that we can't remember 5 minutes after being informed on matters of life and death? Dutchbag (talk) 06:10, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * i think you've posted in the wrong thread, and also, what fuck are you talking about AMassiveGay (talk) 06:50, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Either someone "'splained" it to you incorrectly or you didn't listen. 1) Masks protect people against COVID — both the wearer and the people near the mask wearer. They do this by reducing particle spray (and hence potential viral load) in both directions. 2) Being vaccinated does not mean that you are injected with the virus in the case of COVID. The vaccines contain parts of the virus that activate the immune system to be able to attack the virus quickly should it enter the body at a later time. 3) The vaccines do not work 100% but they do reduce the risk of hospitalization at close to 100%. Not everyone can get vaccinated, so there is still value in some cases for wearing a mask after vaccination. Bongolian (talk) 07:44, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed. While full vaccination effectively eliminates your chance of ending up in hospital or dying it does not necessarily protect you against a low-level or asymptomatic infection.  The chance of further transmission remains low but it's not zero.  So until societies reach something close to herd immunity masks are going to be necessary in some circumstances.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 09:49, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Is not the practical goal of Covid inoculation to make most people have 'low level or asymptomatic infection' (as total elimination is probably not feasible - unlike smallpox, rinderpest, two varieties of polio 'and several other diseases)?
 * And - following on from a letter in a newspaper I read: has anyone had a cold since wearing a mask in public?
 * Given the choice of 'wear masks in certain contexts to reduce cross-infection risks, and earlier easing of lockdowns' or 'extended lockdown so no mask wearing necessary' what would people choose? Anna Livia (talk) 11:17, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * There have certainly been falls in rates of flu and other respiratory viral diseases, although not to zero (but then COVID hasn't fallen to 0 everywhere masks are mandated). This might be due to travel bans, less social contact/more social distancing, awareness of handwashing, or other factors besides masks. You're not going to prevent colds and flu entirely, and they may not spread in exactly the same way as COVID, although exact transmission is surprisingly underresearched. --Annanoon (talk) 11:43, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

For more detailed information on masks, see: Face masks. Bongolian (talk) 17:29, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link. Scientific evidence shows that wearing masks is one way to impede the spread of COVID-19, primarily because masks reduce the outflow of viral particles from infected people including those who are asymptomatic.[1][2][3][4] What does the phrase primarily from people who are aymptomicatic mean? Is a vaccinated person an asymptomatic carrier? Thanx. Dutchbag (talk) 23:20, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * First, per yourself, the more correct quote would be "primarily from infected people", not "primarily from people who are asymptomatic". Second, asymptomatic means that you are infected with the virus, but experience no symptoms.  Since the vaccines are not 100% effective at preventing infection, a vaccinated person may or may not be an asymptomatic carrier.  A large part of the problem with asymptomatic carriers is that they can transmit the disease to others, even though they may not even know they have the virus. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒   talk  00:13, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Masks are worn primarily to prevent the spread from the mask wearer, not primarily to protect the wearer from catching the virus. Dutchbag (talk) 00:38, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * What, exactly, is your point? As an aside, you might be interested to read the rest of the paragraph you quote above: "There is also some evidence that wearing a face mask also protects the wearer, based on some observational evidence that infections were more likely to be asymptomatic for mask wearers.[5] A hypothesis that explains this is that masks reduce the initial viral load (ID50), making it easier for the immune system to overcome the infection.[5] The importance of initial viral load for immune response has been known since 1938.[5] The CDC now says that even cloth face masks protect both the wearer and those around them.[6]" <font color="#00abcb">𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒   talk  00:55, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

So that “pentagon UFO” thing
Sorry if this has already been discussed. Kinda too tired to go through several dozen news articles, comparing/contrasting what they say, double checking the info, basically applying much media literacy at all. Just saw one story from a usually semi-sorta-kinda reliable source (I think CNN maybe? idk tho, it was something of that caliber), that the pentagon is releasing the “UFO files” or whatever. While it’s easy as hell to find ppl saying “it’s definitely aliens no two ways about it”, I figured it’d be interesting to hear what generally sceptical ppl think about it. Any thoughts? Thanks. 2001:8004:E01:1E91:706F:16B2:8499:4B33 (talk) 09:52, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it's more likely there are Lizard people living underground than that this UFO garbage is legit. I mean honestly...alien ships bobbing up and down in the sky and through the clouds but not introducing themselves? Nothing but super grainy images (even in the current age where a satellite can capture an image of a dog? and Donald Trump knowing all this but not talking about it even though he could manipulate such info for his political advantage? Zheesh. Shabi  DOO  12:18, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Based on the idea that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence what we would really like is this.  But we are nowhere near that.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 12:43, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * As shabidoo suggests, the days of grainy footage fooling anyone must surely be long gone. it certianly no extraordinary evidence. the film 'rogue one' starred two people who had died before filming began. they were entirely computer generated. guardians of galaxy has talking rodent thing and tree monster, all computer generated. clear, ungrainy video of what someone is purporting to be aliens and/or alien space craft isnt going to be hard to fake, even on a budget, these days.


 * the rule of thumb one should apply is if someone says its aliens, it isnt. the u in ufo means unidentified not 'must be aliens'. footage of ufos that isnt faked, only shows ufos because the footage is too shit to identify exactly what it is and i can buy a drone for a tenner on amazon.


 * it would be front page news all over the world if genuine footage of aliens were provided and authenticated to such a degree that no could dispute it. even then, i suspect you'd need the aliens to stick around and make contact for anything to not be dismissed with 'photoshop'.


 * unless of course thats what the man wants us to think, and there is a huge conspiracy keeping aliens from the public, the only evidence of which is there is proof of alien visitation.


 * if i saw an alien in my front room right now, and i filmed it with my mobile, capturing every detail perfectly and perfectly lit, id probably keep it myself. no one would believe me. it would need witnesses, corraborating evidence. it need to be not a one off, with the same thing happening all over the place with the same details reported and often enough to show something is going on. without all that, im just a loon with mobile footage thats obviously fake. i'll know though. and i'll always have that anal probing. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:22, 2 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I must say, Mick West provides fantastic hypotheses for some of the mainstream UFO (or UAP as they now like to call it) footage on his Metabunk website and his Youtube channel. Regardless of whether being proven or not, it is certainly better than that gobbledygook that some nutjobs provide about anti-gravity machines and bifurcation and duplication technologies. Moria  (talk)  22:39, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

How does science guard against deliberate fraud and mistakes?
When someone does an experiment, I can't see the experiment being done and actually see if there wasn't any fraud, mistake, or bias going on. What kinds of things does science use to weed out deliberate fraud and bias. For example, research commissioned by a company that sells drugs is going to biased towards that company. Also, how do we know that journals aren't lying and squelching information that they don't want. Basically, since science is done by morally flawed humans, how can we trust it? Mackyboy123 (talk) 10:03, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Independent replication. The nice thing about the truth is that it's there whether you believe in it or not, and if it is found once, it can typically be found again. So, if an experiment/study/etc. is accurate, a different experiment/study/etc. looking at the same thing should find something similar. If not, there is likely a problem with at least one of the studies. This is a basic part of the scientific method, and it works fairly well in the many fields where empirical statistical effects are often strong enough to make fraud or other problems obvious even to people not paying attention. But a lack of interest in paying attention can cause problems in fields with subtler effects. The short version is that science relies on checking things, not trust. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 10:21, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * There are various elements which should (eventually) weed out flaws. These include reproducibility, peer review and  publication.  None of these are perfect - but in the long term they get us where we need to be.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 10:33, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * As someone who verifies scientific equipment for use in experiments, the biggest thing is reproducibility. Other people have to be able to do exactly what you did under the same conditions in order for it to be considered valid.  Whenever a scientific consensus is reached, there is a design blueprint used to construct the experiment.  Using the same blueprint (but NOT necessarily the same exact equipment, as the equipment may be tampered with or faulty) another group must be able to successfully construct the experiment from the ground up.  Now while it is comparatively easy to show if an experiment actually works, it can be very difficult to prove actual fraud.  Because if the experiment can't be replicated, a fraudster can usually claim they made a mistake instead of being an out and out lier.  Because telling the difference between fraud and mistakes is difficult, usually your credibility is based on whether you consistently make "mistakes" or not.  MirrorIrorriM (talk) 13:17, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * But what if the journal editors are fraudsters themselves. That would mean that the journal editors might suppress studies, slip ones in without letting them go through the checks, or add completely made up studies. Also what is the relationship with science and funding. For example, if a pharmaceutical company funds a study testing a drug, couldn't that bias the study.
 * Is there an example of scientists ousting deliberate fraud. Also, is there a book or articles which deals with all this in depth? Mackyboy123 (talk) 15:33, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * "But what if the journal editors are fraudsters themselves. That would mean that the journal editors might suppress studies, slip ones in without letting them go through the checks, or add completely made up studies." Fraud is a criminal charge. So you would need credible evidence of such activities in order to even consider such claims. Further, this is partly solved in advance by having multiple journals with a decent track record. 15:56, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * (EC)Yes. There are examples of scientists who commit fraud.  Sometimes they get found out quickly and sometimes it takes more time.  Real life attempted usage of alleged discoveries or clinical practice in medicine will eventually identify things that don't work even if they pass all other tests. There are entire groups of scientists such as Retraction Watch who spend time policing the process. No system is perfect - but science is the best we have constructed for finding out how the universe works.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:04, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You might be interested in . "...about 2% of scientists admitted to falsifying, fabricating, or modifying data at least once."Kauri0.o (talk) 02:58, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You might also be interested in . Kauri0.o (talk) 03:04, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Hate masks? Get vaccinated
Seems like a fair deal to me.

Then again, conspiracy theorists don't get the idea that if not enough are vaccinated then this mess will continue. --Канал 48 (talk) 01:13, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * How about, respect people's human fucking right to do neither? It isn't people who refuse to get vaccinated who are responsible for the plandemic continuing, it is the people who push the hoax in the first place. 2600:1004:B04C:67F8:2045:2A1:4AB5:69B5 (talk) 01:29, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Cool Story, Bro. Revolverman (talk) 01:51, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * We got a pseudoscience spewing troll. $10 says that it is a sock puppet account. --Канал 48 (talk) 02:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Since I'm vaccinated now, and in America vaccine supply constraints are not a problem. I frankly don't give any fucks about the people willing to play Russian roulette with a virus and not get vaccinated. (I have tremendous sympathy for those who want to get vaccinated, but can't for medical reasons. But that's it.)
 * The main thing I'm confused is why the anti-vaxx crap is such a big US conservative media narrative. Even among Republicans the anti-vaxx crowd for the COVID-19 vaccine is now a minority. In the past, typically Republican media liked to mix a few cultural conservative nuggets (like on abortion or cultural stuff) with nuggets that benefited the certain business class who held the purse strings, which were in fact the higher priority. Pushing anti-lockdown nuggets made sense in this framework (since lockdowns strained certain businesses). But the anti-science shit like anti-face masks and anti-vaccines? It doesn't fit very well here. People aren't going to be buying a lot of stuff from businesses if they are in intensive care on a ventilator. I'll also be fair, not all conservative media is against the vaccine (Fox and Friends hosts returned to a studio set recently flashing their vaccine cards). But it seems like some parts of the conservative machine have detached, and are barreling down a road that not even populists like Donald Trump (who is vaccinated) will go. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 03:16, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I am more convinced anti maskers and anti vaxxers have made COVID their new best friend after losing their family members and friends for their rancid right-wing political beliefs (or just mysteriously dying from an apparent hoax), and they're trying everything they can to make it last as long as they can because they don't want their buddy to die off and they'll be even more lonely than a socially distancing gamer™ like me. 17:30, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * In some states, even if vaccinated, you need a mask. I believe New Jersey is one. Gale5050 (talk) 21:09, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * you should wear a mask if have been vaccinated or not while the pandemic still rages. it makes it easier to enforce if nothing else. its not like opposition to the mask is based on anything more than partisan pettiness. its not even based on a slight inconvenience of having to wear a mask. everyone should all wear one till they are unnecessary for everyone. no one is harmed by wearing a mask or by its enforcement which amounts to putting up a sign on shop doors asking you politely to not be a selfish prick for the 5 minutes it takes to buy your fags.


 * at least those republicans who openly say we should let people die over mild inconveniences are up front about their callous selfishness. you can at least appeal to their selfishness if they are open about it, show its in the best interests to mask up and get vaccinated. its at least honest. when they start talking about freedom and pinning yellow stars to clothes in 'protest' they know its bullshit, they know we know its bullshit, we all know its bullshit but fuck you, they got us having to explain why we are not nazis instead of them explaining why they shouldnt wear a mask. its a 'win' for them. they dont care about masks or vaccines, its just where the battle lines have been drawnAMassiveGay (talk) 14:28, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * anti vaxxers/anti maskers should grow some balls. recognise and openly nail their colours to the mast. stand up and be counted. 'i am a selfish prick and i will not wear a mask'. say it loud, say it proud. why make up lies about it? are they ashamed of who they are? be a selfish prick. but own it. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:44, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no rational argument against masks or vaccinations. Only emotional, and in the United States, political ones. If you choose no to be vaccinated, then you cannot complain about being denied some privileges'.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 22:19, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I would agree that it's a fair deal. It's a damn shame that some people hate both, and they think they don't need either. G Man (talk) 17:57, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey you've lost your bet, the BoN troll is clearly not a sockpuppet account, any chance of the 10 dollars please? Please pay me and I'll lift your block LOL. :D Harry Potter (talk) 04:11, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Seems like the anti-netanyahu bloc can form a government
Now the only need the support of arab parties. Kevs  Ping!  09:13, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't think Naftali Bennett as PM could be seen as an improvement. --Annanoon (talk) 10:49, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I will say that it is a start . Better than the Donald Trump of Israel. --Канал 48 (talk) 15:33, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. A lot will come down to who's in charge of the ministries and things like that. --Annanoon (talk) 15:51, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I doubt much will change. People who observe politics should focus less on personalities and more on institutions. Getting rid of individual bad leaders (Bibi, Trump, etc) is an improvement, not a solution.-Flandres (talk) 16:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * i'm with annanoon here. i cannot see how this guy is an improvement. this is getting rid of bad leader by replacing them with a worse one. netanyahu is being ousted for corruption, not because of his politics are unpopular.
 * you shouldnt be celebrating if you are hoping for a two state solution or removal/halting of settlements in the west bankAMassiveGay (talk) 17:08, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Even an arab and social democratic parties are involved. And they support all a two-state solution. Kevs  Ping!  05:52, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * the deal means no decisions on the west bank. suits bennett, the west bank is not far off his vision for it. meanwhile we drift further and further from the corpse of a two state solution. it aint going to be revived by this coalition. that'll take more than a change of government to bring back.
 * the very presence of bennett's party means nothing will change for the palestinians if the fragile coalition is to last. then what? ousting netanyahu does not solve anything, it just puts a freeze anything further he can do. it wont undo anything. it remains to be seen what this coalition can accomplish when ousting bibi was all they agree on. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:03, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it's fair to say this coalition will only remain intact through the pandemic and isn't going to do anything drastic. The primary purpose is to deny Bibi a government.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 16:41, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Czechia
I would like the discuss the usage of the geographical name of Czechia. The current article about Czechia as well as other important articles (Europe, European Union) use the geographical name Czechia. The geographical name ‘Czechia’ is used by the European Union, the CIA World Factbook or the UN. I had been trying to remedy the inconsistency of usage until I was stopped by. She recommended me to discuss it here. I know that there could be situations that the usage of the political name could be prefered, but the term ‘Czech Republic’ is used among the geographical names of the other countries in several articles. --Martin Tauchman (talk) 17:29, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * As per Wikipedia, both terms are acceptable. Perhaps, they should be just left as they are to avoid edit wars. Bongolian (talk) 03:05, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Both terms are correct but the long name is used in different situations than the short name. (As you could read on .) --Martin Tauchman (talk) 23:56, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Brexit supporter confusion on Australian migration policy?
I saw this [//www.bbc.com/news/business-57314682] which included comments from Tim Martin a Brexit supporter who like many Brexit supports has come into controversy because their actions or words seem to contradict their support for Brexit. Anyway I noticed this part in particular "Mr Martin, a vocal Brexit supporter, told the BBC he had always favoured an Australian style system which treated near neighbours preferentially.".

Putting aside speculation of why Australia is always the example when several countries have similar points based systems, the "near neighbours" part confused me. Since I live in NZ, I thought I had some familiarity with the modern Australian immigration system still I double checked but also couldn't find anything. Australia doesn't really have a system which gives any preference to neighbours or near neigbours. The only thing in the point system which comes close is the community language points but that isn't restricted to languages which would be in neighbours. Given recent events, there is also an advantage with some visas to having a Hong Kong passport, and in addition any a country to which Australia has an international trade obligations which is probably slightly more likely with neighbours. Likewise I guess working holiday visas may be slightly more likely to be negotiated with neighbours but with many other factors you can see in the current list there isn't really much of a near neighbour bias. So none of these seem to fit.

There is the special category visa for New Zealand citizens which pretty much anyone who can pass the character and health test can get to move to Australia and live and study or work there. But this is very similar to freedom of movement that Brexiters were fighting against (albeit with less protections) so I assume can't be what is being referred to. (Also even if Australia were to absorb the entire population of NZ it would only be a 20% increase so causes less concern.)

There are also special visas for low skilled temporary workers from the Pacific Islands, often fruit pickers or other agricultural workers. I guess these could be what are being referred to but it seems misleading to suggest these are simply giving neighbours preferential treatment. While neighbours does come in to it, they're generally promoted as a way to help out the tiny island nations where there can be limited job opportunities given geography, economies of scale, history etc. So they specifically exclude other often closer neighbours e.g. Indonesia. Comparing this to the EU, even countries like Romania or Poland seems a bit naff. From Australia's POV the numbers are also not that large compared to what I assume Tim Martin must be referring to for the UK.

Am I missing something? Or did Martin express himself poorly or maybe the BBC did, and he meant to say an Australian style system but with an addition of preference to neighbours? Or is he just, being generous, confused? (A reasonable percentage of recent migrants to Australia are from Asian countries for a variety of reasons including geographical proximity but not really because of Australian policy.)

Nil Einne (talk) 13:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * you are missing that he is a selfish prick who wants special treatment now he finds brexit is going to make things difficult for him personally. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:55, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * the line in the article says he favours an 'Australian style system which treated near neighbours preferentially' and a bit further on he mentions a visa system 'America, Australia, and singapore' having benefited from 'from this approach'. i dont think he means the australian model specifically to be copied just something similar to one part it. we already have or had a points based system for immigration fro outside the eu that was informed by the australian model. we have nothing really set up for immigration from the eu as of yet, and we will likely need one. martins however just wants his cake and to eat it. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:10, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Gotta be honest, I don’t understand brexit enough to know what this guy means, but as an Australian, anyone wanting our immigration system makes me incredibly suspicious. Like, ignoring all the stuff about letting neighbors in easier or whatever the fuck, I’ve usually heard it used by non-Australians as a dog-whistle for either: 1) implementing our system of putting refugees in offshore concentration camps with the goal of forcing them to just give up and commit suicide; or 2) the fuckin white Australia policy. Like, weigh up the pros and cons of whatever aspect you want, but our immigration is and always has been so horrifically cruel and racist that it’s difficult for me to not be suspicious of anyone praising any aspect of it. Maybe try making your point with a country that doesn’t do the awful shit we do. 2001:8004:1301:C08C:7082:E554:48:59E2 (talk) 02:59, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * (not necessarily saying that’s where this guy is coming from, sounds like he’s talking about smthn completely different, but that’s just my gut reaction whenever anyone says we have a good immigration system) 1.128.109.252 (talk) 03:04, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * he didnt as fa as i know, but offshoring immigrants on a remote island somewhere has actualy been floated by the home secretary. it was legally shakely an fucking idiot to boot that it didnt go anywhere, but we are no stranger to inhumane immigration policy. we have the 'hostile environment' which aside from promoting the anti immigrant sentiment that fucked us at brexit, but led to the fucking appalling windrush scandal which the govis still dragging its feet over.
 * we are incapable of discussing immigration as anything other than a deluge that needs to be checked by makthe ing hoops to leap through in order to qualify for a visa tougher and tougher, ensuring you have x amount in the bank, a job you are coming to do so you wont be a burden requiring welfare benefits (which we will limit and make harder for you to get). anything that stream lines the process, any obstacle removed is making it too easy for anyone to come in, and we are being swamped by hordes of foreigners.


 * we dont know how to deal with the idea that we need some level of immigration or there are jobs done by immigrants too shitty for the locals to bother with, or seasonal at best. fruit picking for example. how many hoops would you jump through in order to travel to a foreign company for temporary and back breaking labour earning minimum wage? might still be worth it if you coming from some war torn hellscape with massive levels of poverty, maybe. coming from europe though you've got to have this document, that evidence, this amount of money, it will take months to process, and need to be certified by your head of state personally? with no entitlement of benefits that might make it worth your while? not going to get many french or german folk crossing the channel to work in weatherspoons i can tell you that. requiring any kind of visa would not be worth anyones time. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:15, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * And Britain joins the contest for "most Kafkaesque immigration system", joining long time contestants Australia and the United States. 13:46, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Developing an original character for my upcoming EAS scenario
While developing original characters for Emergency Alert System videos is not a new concept, it adds extra creativity to the video.

Anyways my character is a vampire queen by the name of Queen Moroacia. She has orange eyes, is 1.8 meters tall and wears a green satin cloak. Moroacia also has telekinetic and pyrokinetic abilities. --Канал 48 (talk) 15:37, 2 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you could edit this wiki and attempt to remove some of the blatant secular left bias instead of creating fictional characters? Prpht mhmd (talk) 19:36, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Huh? 19:41, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This wiki has a very clear leftist & atheistic/secular bias. This is in the face of the facts that Christianity is on the rise, much to the chagrin to atheists worldwide.
 * This is a general discussion area where anything can be talked about as long as it does not violate the rules. You also created an account which means you can edit . Also the editors are simply human and might have bias on a particular subject. --Канал 48 (talk) 20:56, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * We aren't atheists or secular. We're a theocracy that worships tall vampire MILFs. 21:12, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * All hail Lady Dimitrescu! Moria  (talk)  03:55, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * May I offer some thoughts? I think adding characters to analog horror vids is a unique angle to take with the genre, but it hinges on what role the character plays. Is the vampire queen a hero or a villain in the video? TheJakeHolmesVersion (talk) 15:36, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Queen Moroacia is 100% villain. --Канал 48 (talk) 20:48, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Would she be the main villain or a supporting antagonist? 15:19, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Main villain. --Sheeple (talk) 21:08, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * A lot of people kinda skimp on parents for characters. Who are her parents? 23:06, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * In part 3 (probably won't be for several months), I intend on adding a back story. Something like the vampire queen being the daughter of Lilith. Also this is an emergency warning screen for my video.

--Sheeple (talk) 18:13, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Afrikaans language: Unwanted connotations behind it
I do find it sad that a simple language gets a bad rap due to people who are racist white supremacists asshole and apartheid. How do you get a language away from the unwanted connotations behind it. Languages themselves are not evil but rather people can be. --Sheeple (talk) 20:59, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait 20 or 30 generations? Language is generally inextricably linked to culture and social identity, and hence many indigenous peoples around the world are looking to reviving/preserving it as part of their decolonization and reclaiming their history. Don't see why it should be any different for any other society just because they are white racist arseholes.  Afrikaans was widely seen as the language of the racist apartheid regime - even overseas - and the Afrikaans speakers used to proudly declaim their heritage as explorers and conquerors of Sth Africa, oppressed by the British Empire in the unjust Boer Wars that htey almost won (think heroic Commandos, concentration camps), etc....   so I'd bet it isn't going to happen in your lifetime, if ever. Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 01:00, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Afrikaans is by my understanding mostly Dutch with some of the rough edges sanded off, and the two languages maintain a high degree of intelligibility. Dutch itself always strikes me as a sort of Charlie Chaplin language, a mix of English and German made to establish that a scene is 'foreign' without getting too specific.  OTOH, thinking of the Boer Wars may well remind us that history is complicated, and pigeonholing people into the categories of 'oppressor' and 'oppressed' is always an oversimplification. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 14:32, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Afrikaans is very close to Dutch but it is certainly its own language. It has much simplified grammar (very similar to English's verb system) and no grammatical gender (like English). There is some notable vocabulary differences, sound and spelling differences. After Frisian it is the closest language to English (closer than Dutch) and it is the easiest language for Native English speakers to learn. Unfortunately it is of little use to English speakers (even if you visit South Africa) and there is very little Afrikaans literature, cinema or theatre to enjoy. As for linking a language to an unsavoury history...it is a silly thing to do. If that were the case then German and Japanese (for more recent examples) should be seen in the same light and then English, French, Spanish and Portuguese (when considering centuries of vicious unconscionable colonialism and brutality) should be seen as extremely ugly. Shabi  DOO  18:01, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You can tell English is a more feminist language than most because they abolished genders long ago. 20:54, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Estonian and Persian have no gendered pronouns, so clearly they are the most egalitarian societies anywhere... that said, holding a language accountable for its speakers is a very odd idea. What the hell language would anyone speak under that system? The Blade of the Northern Lights (<font face="MS Mincho" color="black">話して下さい )
 * I guess people need reeducating, it's so unfortunate that people don't get the difference between Apartheid supporters and Afrikaans speakers. I'm surprised people don't find English, Russian, and German offensive by the same logic. Harry Potter (talk) 04:03, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * the promotion/usage of afrikaans as the language lessons were to be taught in during the 70s led in part to the soweto uprising. it was seen as a tool of white afrikaner hegemony, a language of the oppressors. its indelibly linked to apartheid for many - a link that is not easily severed. apartheid or not, language and nationalism go hand in hand. being able to speak the language is often a prerequisite for membership of a particular culture. even when its only the more extreme elements that promote or use a language, a slight accent can indicate to some that you are not from around these parts. it does not surprise me that afrikaans has this widespread negative association, even if it is no longer true. and people do find the usage of english objectionable in some parts of the world. in parts england some find some english accents objectionable. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:02, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Tiananmen Square
32 years ago today. Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 21:00, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Gotta love Bing's reaction to it, thank goodness most people use Google. The Blade of the Northern Lights (<font face="MS Mincho" color="black">話して下さい ) 01:41, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thirty two years? Incredible. Where does the time go?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:34, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Marius Reikerås
I've written Marius Reikerås, currently in my private namespace, and would really like some feedback as I'm a new contributor to this site - before moving it into the main namespace if the community believes quality is good enough.

Rlh (talk) 12:30, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I did a few minor edits, you can check the logs for a description. Seems mostly okay to me but I didn't check the sources – we should be a bit careful with pages about living people – so no opinion about that.
 * If you put references before punctuation it looks really weird if you have 3 or 4 references[1][2][3][4]. People usually aren't super-strict about style, but just something that really stood out, just so you know :-) I think I fixed most of it, but perhaps I missed one or two. Also see: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Help:Manual_of_style Arp242 (talk) 17:53, 5 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I've created the page, and will probably add more to it in the future :) Rlh (talk) 18:06, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * One of the nice things about this entire Wiki thing is that mistakes and errors can be corrected easily by anyone; so "be bold" in making pages and editing existing ones (but apply common sense judgement, of course). Arp242 (talk) 18:09, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Cool video of Glyphosate being drained
I found this video, it looks really cool and trippy, like molten lava flowing or something. I just wasn't sure if this is really how this chemical acts or if it's just edited or a camera trick or what? Anyone be able to weigh in on this? :)--WMS (talk) 20:03, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Concentrated Roundup is only slightly thicker than water and yellowish, and this is probably *not* concentrate. I agree with multiple posters that this is probably an optical illusion caused by video frame rates. See this post for instance on how a speaker vibrating at exactly (or slightly lower or higher) than the 24 FPS frame rate causes water in the video to appear "frozen". I'm thinking something similar is going on here. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 20:16, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I would also say this is a camera artifact. Besides the obvious weirdness, consider the fact that, per the other wiki, over 250 million pounds of glyphosate were used in 2013 alone.  Combined with its boogeyman status, I find it incredibly unlikely that it actually flows like this without having attracted much more attention long ago. <font color="#00abcb">𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒   talk  21:35, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Pro-Russian nonsense
Why does RationalWiki hate Russia so much and promote American-Ukrainian-Israeli imperialist propaganda against Russia and Russians? Why is Russia considered a hotbed of "authoritarian wingnuttery" when there is far more racism and right-wing extremism in Ukraine and the United States? Russia is literally the most antifascist country in the world and all Nazis are put in prison there. 70% of Russians have a favorable view of Stalin, the destroyer of fascism, while most Westerners wolf down the Nazi propaganda about MUH HOLODOMOR with nearly as much gusto as Chloe Yearwood wolfs down her uncle's cum. Obviously Putin is not perfect, as he is a capitalist who is too soft on the west, and it would be better for a genuine antifascist movement like the National Bolsheviks to be in power. But Russia is far more left-wing and progressive than the west, and if you are supposed to be rational you should acknowledge this. Tankie1917 (talk) 23:52, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * So actively suppressing LGBT+ people, illegally taking away land, interfering with foreign elections, lying about other countries and using violent police brutality against protesters is anti-fascist? By the way, there is negative commentary about the US, Ukraine and Israel. Either you are a troll with nothing better to do or just are a complete moron. --Sheeple (talk) 01:10, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah Tankie. You're totally right. That's why everyone is flocking to Russia to embrace their values of freedom and finding prosperity and not to the United States. Shabi  DOO  01:14, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If the argument you are using to defend a nation-state is that it is "not as a bad as" the US you don't genuinely have a defence. I hate how willfully tankies engage in whataboutism as if it's an intelligent counter. Also why does everything get framed in this false dichotomy that if you don't support the nation-states of Russia, China Syria, or Iran you must necessarily support the US and Capitalistic Imperialism? Are we also going to seriously pretend that criticism of Isreal's apartheid of Palestinians is not not commonly expressed on this site? Like sure people fight about it, but it is not as if this site expresses a consensus of uncritical support of Isreal. Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 11:22, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Does third-world immigration to developed countries increase global warming?
I saw a map of the per capita CO2 emissions of various regions on the world.

In a lot of cases third-world immigration to developed countries increases a typical persons CO2 annual emissions.

In order to reduce carbon emissions, people in the developed world need to live very simple lives. Like much less television internet usage and living in apartments instead of houses. But I don't see this happening. Bilsonius (talk) 01:13, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * While I suppose what you are saying is technically true I think immigration is relatively irrelevant to the bigger picture of global warming. CO2 emissions are actually rising in developed countries (not that they are anywhere near developed levels) and some developed countries are actively (or at least will) cutting their emissions. It's true that with an increase in population in a country that has high emissions it means there will, over all be a net gain in emissions, actual increase due to immigration (as a percentage of over all world increase) is likely to be a tiny fraction (as opposed to say growth in industries like transport and fossil fuel based power generation). Ultimately, the solution you are proposing (that we live simple lives) is one possible answer but it is not going to be adopted by any developed country. It is simply asking too much of self-interested people and any government that actually tried to do it would be voted out in the next election. The planet will likely be on fire in a few centuries. I fear humanity is too much of one giant colossal dipshit to effectively deal with this issue. We ought to consider our next lunar mission be one where we place time capsules of the strange human story so that they are easy to find if any intelligent life visits our neighbourhood some time in the future.  Shabi  DOO  01:20, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I should say, Bilsonius is a bit misleading, as things like "television internet usage" (a.k.a., indirect emissions from power generation) only accounts for a small fraction of emissions in the US, and while immigrants from developing nations use more energy than they would have in their home countries, they still use less per capita than non-immigrants. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 01:37, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The United States and Canada have large amounts of immigration. The also are among the countries with the highest carbon dioxide emissions per capita. Australia is also among the largest carbon dioxide emission countries per capita. In Australia, immigrants account for 30% of its population, the highest proportion among major Western nations.


 * Although Germany's carbon dioxide emissions is not as high as North America/Australia per capita, it is among the highest emitters of carbon dioxide due to its status as an industrial powerhouse and exporter. Germany has a lot of immigration.


 * When you take into account higher home ownership (rather than apartment/condo dwelling), higher car ownership, bigger consumer goods purchases, etc., immigration to higher carbon dioxide emission countries does cause a significant amount of carbon dioxide emissions.


 * Electricity generation causes 25% of carbon dioxide emissions. The internet uses about 5% of global electricity use. While the internet does serve a useful purpose, there are a lot of cat videos, porn, entertainment, etc. RationalWiki has "fun pages" which merely entertain people and do contribute to higher carbon dioxide emissions in the world.


 * Watching television has no significant impact on viewers' knowledge about the issue of climate change, a new study suggests. Most of what is on television is entertainment. Bilsonius (talk) 16:19, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * making dogshit arguments on the internet cant be a great use of resources either, but here you are. whatever impact immigration has on climate change (i guess you not interested in that climate change is more of a driver of immigration than vice versa) pales in significance when compared to a country's use of fossil fuels. the us, germany, australia - do you what else they share with each other beyond high levels of immigration? most of their electricity generation comes from fossil fuels. per capita its oil producing states that produce the most co2 but they have small populations. its places like us that have the high total emissions - the us produces about 16.2 tonnes where the global average is 4.8. many places in europe are closer to average - the uk has around 5.8 and france 5.5. the difference is how they produce their electricity. germany has fossil fuels producing 55% of their electricity while france a mere 6%.


 * of course you must know this already because its all in the article you originally posted. do you know what isnt in that article? anything do with immigration. at all. more population must surely equal more usage of electricity thus more co2 emissions. its a banal assumption and you could probably go further and say therefore immigration increases co2. what we cannot do with the sources you provided to back the back your claims is say how significant an effect it has on climate change. im sure there is data for such a question somewhere but im not gonna find it for you. it certainly isnt in your source, that concludes that the usage of fossil fuels is the cause of the higher carbon footprint of the us and co, and more generally that prosperity is the main driver of co2 emissions - the poorest countries have a miniscule carbon footprint compared to us.


 * you ignored those conclusions in favour of asserting with no evidence of its significance or extent that third world immigration is fueling global warming, then immediately informing us that we in the developed world need to live more simply to reduce carbon emissions. a dogshit double whammy of piling on to immigrants with what looks more racist the clearer it becomes you are lazily asserting dogshit, with that 'need to live more simply' claim which is little to sanctimonious for such trite banality.


 * go watch some cat videos instead of smearing everything with dogshit. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:00, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The posting style gives off odd trollish vibes. I recommend not wasting time with this one. 18:17, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * if people insist on responding to racist talking points (its entirely evidence free racist talking points), it should be made clear to all that dogshit is in fact dogshit AMassiveGay (talk) 18:23, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I get this kind of racist shit needs a response but wouldn't racist shits also try really hard to get the last word? Maybe one response is fine but racist shits will always try to declare victory and continue being dishonest. So I think draw a line, aa there's no end to bad faith argumentation. 18:27, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

The lion share of my income currently comes from a firm which is owned by a Latin American immigrant. I don't feel threatened by immigration. Immigration is going to be a benefit to me in the future financially speaking.

The United States is one of the biggest emitters of carbon dioxide in the world per capita and its economy is very large.

Just taking a look at the Latin American slice of immigration shows that immigration is going to have a very large effect on the USA. Hispanics make up 18% of the USA population today and by 2050 they are projected to make up 29% of the USA population.

In addition to immigrants from developed countries to developed countries causing a net increase in carbon dioxide after they arrive, the act of emigrating/traveling from a developing country to a developed country causes an increase in carbon emissions.

Climate scientists say the effects of global warming will become irreversible relatively soon. Cultures change slow. About a 1/3 of Americans believe that climate change is caused natural sources and not human activity. And just because an American believes in global warming doesn't mean his behavior will change. If you don't believe me, try getting the average American to change his diet to be a more ecologically friendly diet. Bilsonius (talk) 18:36, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Understanding cause and effect is hard for you is it. You might as well suggest a conversion away from atheism as atheism (which has an apparent obesity problem so wow!!!!!!! That coincides with your suggestion for a better diet!!!) is on the rise and so is average global temperatures. I'll be super super surprised if you wrote, say, a wiki page on the ill effects of atheism on climate change!!! Oh!!! 18:42, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Globally, I don't have any data on the net effect of a person's belief or nonbelief in God on their carbon emissions.


 * State atheism has a poor record on environmental matters (the Soviet Union and China for example).


 * Li Gao, director general of the China's ministry’s department of climate change says 56.8% of China's domestic energy generation in 2020 came from coal. China has the second largest world economy.


 * Atheists in democracies tend to lean left politically and global warming is a concern of the left.


 * As far as the world having a diversity in terms people's genetic makeup, variety is the spice of life. And race has nothing to do with the world's carbon emissions. Bilsonius (talk) 19:55, 6 June 2021 (UTC)


 * (ec)i'd be surprised if they were to make a case that wasnt all racist dog whistles and unsupported assertions or realise that just repeating the same dogshit claims after they are told exactly why they were dogshit in the first place will suddenly be a convincing argument and not just the same dogshit claims. id be surprised if they could stop flinging dogshit about the place long enough to realise the world would be a much nicer place without them trying to give everything a layer of dogshit just because they've filled the void inside of themselves with dogshit and can only see in terms of dogshit/notdogshit with anything notdogshit a reminder they are nothing but dogshit so they have to make everything dogshit because they are dogshit and all they have is dogshit.


 * they are dogshit is what im trying to say AMassiveGay (talk) 20:35, 6 June 2021 (UTC)


 * AMassiveGay, your scatological rant was not at all impressive. It is commonly thought individuals who use profanity and coarse language have limited vocabularies and imaginations. From a rhetorical standpoint, your rant was a failure. Bilsonius (talk) 21:14, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Your barely-hidden anti-immigrant trolling FUD is not impressive either. If you were actually sincere, you'd fucking Google it and read the first article from Brookings, which examines how climate change may force more migration in the future due to weather related events... which is the real story. But you're a troll, you're not, and as far as cursing goes, fuck off. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 21:24, 6 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes and no. There's efficiencies of scale... and inefficiencies of scale.  An immigrant to, say, Chicago is moving into an otherwise unoccupied apartment, and likely using public services that produce little CO2 compared to the average in the US.  At the same time, the electricity used by the immigrant is being added to the grid demand, and any demand above what the wind produces is being met by natural gas.  On the flip side, the West is also much more energy efficient than the 3rd world.  A street vendor grilling food on an electric grill in the US produces far less CO2 per pound of food cooked than a street vendor in India using a coal-fired grill.  The same goes for heavy industries as well.
 * It's complicated, obviously. Really, our immigration policy needs a lot of a reform such as 1) ensuring the highly educated young people can more or less skip the line entirely, 2) making sure there's a relative balance of genders coming in (currently immigrants tend to be too... masculine... which does create problems), 3) getting rid of both the bullshit diversity lottery system and the bullshit that is country quotas that make it too difficult for people from large countries from immigrating in spite of being productive, 4) getting rid of H1B or altering it so it isn't designed to undercut the middle class, e.g., make it a bidding system (whichever company pays the worker the most gets the workers) instead of lottery (whichever company submits the most applications gets the most workers), 5) making it much easier for obviously productive immigrants to naturalize.  19:06, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Honestly some of the security/regulation concerns (the ones grounded in reality, obviously) could be addressed by forming a multi-national confederation similar to the EU in addition to enacting the reforms you mentioned. The level of immigration between EU member states helps keep each state's economy mostly stable, though there are of course other factors and problems (austerity, multinational companies gaming the system, etc

) 19:18, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * With which countries? While there is NAFTA, the US isn't likely to create some "American Union (AU)" a la the EU with all of Central and South America. As for the EU, while there's a crapton of anti-White racism in the EU, most of the grumbling is reserved for Caribbean/Magrebi/SAsian/MidEastern immigrants and refugees.  Oh and Romani/Gypsies, who are utterly despised by everyone.
 * Personally I wouldn't mind some sort of AU that had more or less free trade, strong "suggestions" for financial regulations, cooperation on environmental, security, and policing issues, some priority for immigration, etc.
 * Also I think NATO countries should get priority for immigration, because those peoples have put their necks on the line to help protect the US and so have "earned" a bit more than countries who have never fought alongside the US. Although the NATO treaty would need to be updated to allow, say, Mexico and Brazil which have shown some interest in joining...  21:05, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of the racism and xenophobia in the EU. I was mainly referring to the basic idea behind their system, i.e. free travel between member states. As for who the US would ally with for a theoretical AU, that would be all those Latin American countries that hate us. The NATO idea does sound interesting though. 22:14, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Orania, South Africa- an interesting anomaly
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orania,_Northern_Cape

Reading things about the Afrikaans language (as mentioned in a previous post), I came across a strange town called Orania. Depending on you talk to it is either a racist dream town with no black people or a holdout for Afrikaner culture. A red flag for me is that they teach two types of history: known facts and a revisionist one in which there is no mention of Nelson Mandela along with little mention of apartheid. Also there is not a single non-white resident. --Sheeple (talk) 22:25, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That is such a raging red flag it is a piece of cloth soaked in kerosene alight on a hilltop. Yikes! Alternative facts history. Shabi  DOO  23:57, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * As racists go, they don't seem too bad (recognizing the state, welcoming Mandela and Zuma for visits). Bongolian (talk) 00:04, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Alternative history belongs in fiction novels for mere entertainment purposes; not to be taught as fact. --Sheeple (talk) 00:24, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, their official lack of grip on reality would seem to be fodder for spinning out of control or becoming a cult. Bongolian (talk) 01:13, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

The lack of black people does not put me off as I live in an area with zero black people. Many areas in the world have communities that are of a single ethnic group. Actively skewing history is a different story. --Sheeple (talk) 20:52, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * is one thing to for somewhere to be not particularly diverse by chance, its quite another to actively exclude anyone not of a specific ethnic group, as is the case with orania only welcoming afrikaners to live in their town. thats a lack of diversity not by chance but by design. there might be some legit non controversial reasons for that. in the land that gave us apartheid it should make you wonder just what those reasons might be. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:45, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Reverse the perspective - the 'diehard (term of choice)' are voluntarily removing themselves from the rest of South Africa which can then become more pluralist (at the risk of being excluded from the dialogue).
 * What happens if 'a group of people of other origins' self-identifying as Afrikaner demands rights of settlement there? Anna Livia (talk) 15:16, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Would Orania make a good RationalWiki article? I think so as for the official YouTube channel about Orania, the comment sections are full of racist supporters. --Sheeple (talk) 20:57, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Recent Infrastructure Hacks
So with the big pipeline and meat plant ransomware attacks, hacking is in the news. Anyone have some predictions of how this is going to play out? I think big ransomware infrastructure hacking events are going to become more common for the next 3 years or so, and then companies will get their shit together by just banning outside emails from non-trusted sources (also banning non-company USB sticks will probably be common policy). Whether or not they do that before the government starts enforcing mandatory cybersecurity policies on "critical infrastructure businesses" I think is a coinflip. Thoughts? MirrorIrorriM (talk) 16:00, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The other interesting angle with all these ransomware attacks is exactly how it will impact Bitcoin and other Wild West cryptocurrencies, given the prominent role crypto plays in these attacks. China's already cracking down pretty hard on a lot of crypto right now. I wouldn't be surprised if others follow. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 16:13, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Gvmt managed to clawback 2/3 of the bitcoins used in the ransomware attack. Bitcoins entire promise to criminals prospective investors is that the coins can't be clawed away from you, yet, the government proved they can be, which is why Bitcoin lost 10% overnight.  A few countries may outlaw bitcoin and cryptos entirely too.  What will happen in response is that the criminal gangs will start retaliating against the companies, assuming they are organized enough.  The Mafia holds your daughter hostage, you pay the ransom and they give the daughter, then you report to the police?  Fuggeddabouddit.  They gonna whack someone in your family.  It's just business.  18:45, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Hypothetical stupid scenario
Assume every sockpuppeteer who has affected the wiki goes at each other. There is no administrative intervention to this. Who would 'win'? A21 (talk) 22:47, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Who cares? None of them are interesting in the slightest. 22:57, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Why no admin intervention? But hypothetically how would they "go at each other"? Harry Potter (talk) 04:00, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Go after each other in terms of insults, harassment or doxxing? --Boterham (talk) 01:38, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

If Dead Rising 3 became reality
The game takes place in the year 2021. It takes place in a Los Angeles-like city and it is affected by a zombie outbreak. The military lets the zombie parasite as a distraction to assassinate the president and install a military dictatorship. The President becomes a zombie after the military intentionally infects her with the parasite. If 2020 taught us something, anything can happen.

Why could I picture something like that coming true? The military becomes corrupt, infects Biden with a zombie pathogen and installs a dictatorship. I have weird thoughts. --Sheeple (talk) 18:38, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd mostly agreed with you, but 1) you've linked the phrase "If 2020 taught us something, anything can happen" to Donald Trump and not to COVID-19 or something more accurate in my opinion, and 2) could it be because COVID-19 is arguably similar to that ? Harry Potter (talk) 02:16, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

A small coming out
It's been a year and a half since I first joined RW, and I started learning more and more about my body. As the first week of pride month comes to an end, I can now officially say that I am a bisexual demiman. My pronouns, in case you were wondering, will be both he/him/his and they/them/their. I am not an expert on the bisexual and non-binary community, so there are others who are different from me. I wouldn't get mad if you misgender me, mainly because it's hard to use new pronouns. Needless to say, I'm happy for who I am, and I am happy for everyone else. I hope that this is a reminder that you shouldn't be angry at who you are. Thank you. — <font color="Red">Jeh2ow <font color="Blue">Damn son!  20:59, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I find the terms to be a bit confusing. Not against transgender or non-binary people though. Be who you are and happy pride month. --Sheeple (talk) 22:40, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It's great to figure things out. I was a serial bisexual when I was a teenager. Most people were indifferent, or hostile, and I think that probably explains why I don't think about myself in that way anymore. As one ages, and one learns more and more about the world, less and less of it has to do with gender or sexuality. It isn't that those things aren't important, it is just that the world is so freaking marvelously addictive as a thing in itself.UncleKrampus (talk) 23:36, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Critical race theory and atheism
Has anyone done any work on the analysis of atheism from a Critical Race Theory perspective? How should one analyse the situation in which many Black Americans find support through the Black Church in resisting systemic racism, and then the predominantly white atheist community comes along and says the religious beliefs of the Black Church are false? Of course, I don't deny that there are Black atheists, but you could say they are not representative of the majority of the Black American community, just as you might say that Candace Owens or Clarence Thomas or Thomas Sowell are not representative of the majority of that community either – and isn't then the invocation of the existence of Black atheists another example of white people gravitating to minority perspectives in the Black community which are viewed as "white-friendly" and ignoring the majority of Black voices? (Especially given that the "Black Republicanism" which Owens/Thomas/Sowell/etc represent, while definitely a minority of the Black American community, are actually a much bigger minority than Black atheists are.) And I guess I could ask the same question as an Australian – what should a Critical Race Theory perspective have to say about the predominantly white Australian atheist community declaring that both Traditional Indigenous Australian Religion, and Indigenous Australian Christianity, are fundamentally false beliefs, and that the predominantly white atheists possess the truth which most Indigenous Australians lack? If one takes Critical Race Theory seriously, should one therefore reject atheism as another manifestation of white supremacy? DepressedAustralian (talk) 01:19, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you should acknowledge the history of African-Americans if you want context. Slaves were forced to convert to Christianity since 1619, and since then, black Americans are more likely to be religious than white Americans. Of course, there are black Christians who do anything to stop racism (i.e. Martin Luther King), but there are also black atheists who do the exact same. Prior to colonialism, Africans were either pagan or secular, yet they often did well with their civilizations. I think the best way to look at this is that there is no one true representative of any ethnicity, as people are just different. — <font color="Red">Jeh2ow <font color="Blue">Damn son!  01:31, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Is there any historical evidence for atheism in Africa prior to European colonialism? Prior to Europeans, historically present religions on the African continent included Indigenous African religions, Islam, Christianity, Hellenistic paganism (in North Africa), Judaism, ancient Egyptian religion, ancient Berber religion, etc. They differed in beliefs, but they all shared a belief in gods/spirits/demons and other supernatural entities which modern atheism rejects. Indigenous African religions were generally speaking not atheist; they often were polytheistic, or involved the worship of spirits – entities which atheists would deny existed. There is some pre-European history of atheism in pre-European India (Charvaka), but I'm not aware of any pre-European presence of atheism in Africa. As far as I'm aware, atheism in Africa was introduced from Europe, it is not an indigenous phenomenon. DepressedAustralian (talk) 02:29, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * while black atheists are representative of black americans neither are white atheists representative of white americans. i understand the church to be very strong in black american communities, no doubt in no small part to its role during the civil rights era. i understand black americans are less likely to be openly atheist than their white counterparts, not wanting to become a minority within a minority is a reason posited. another is the perceived whiteness of atheist groups (there is no atheist community) might seem less than welcoming to black people, or least not appear to understand issues that effect.


 * that all said, atheism in white america is still a minority view. atheists have never been the dominate force in american society. they've never been the establishment or mainstream america. as i understand it, critical race theory deals with laws and legal institutions being systemically racist. it was not white american atheists forming racist laws but mainly white american christians. how is atheism a factor here?


 * if there is an issue with atheism and race, it is the lack of diversity amongst prominent atheists, the perceived whiteness of atheists unwelcoming to non white atheists. i am unaware of any group of self-proclaimed white atheists that are telling specifically black people their religion is false or attempting to 'impose' atheism on black people similar to the way colonial powers imposed there religion subjugated peoples. black people are more than capable of coming to atheism on there own. indigenous peoples having their cultures destroyed by european invaders has always been done with christianity being forced upon them.


 * as for historic evidence of atheism, its pretty thin on the ground pretty much everywhere, not just in africa. even thinner if we are talking about explicit atheism. at times in some places more humanist thought might have been tolerated, but its never been mainstream. nowhere did it form part of long and unbroken tradition. i have read that humanist thought has been feature of african societies at times going back millenia. i cannt find any sources on line to give me specifics. even without it though, atheism introduced to africa from europe? i find that a questionable statement. when european powers carved africa for themselves, they sent christian missionaries to convert the natives. they did not send atheist missionaries. atheism was not an imperialist endeavour.AMassiveGay (talk) 07:18, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not one that takes the "critical race theory" thing very seriously, personally. These days, it seems to be mostly notable a Big Boogeyman of the Right Wing that gives your racist Tucker Carlson viewers to get outraged over obscure lefties pointing out (in an incredibly too-American minority-studies sort of framework) that whee, tribalism exists and shapes culture and law. Critical race theory has nothing to say about atheism that I know of; in fact, a criticism of "critical race theory" that seemed to be floating around well before it became a Fox News yelling point was that it was way too focused on the Black-white dynamic and didn't have much to say about, say, Asians in America and the issues that arose from that (or any other minority group for that matter). From a tribal perspective, the most interesting thing going on in American religion, as far as "atheism" goes, is the rising amount of un-churched Americans. This is partially as a reaction to fundamentalist Christianity becoming bound and tied to right wing politics and bigotry. Not all un-churched Americans are atheist, but a few are. It's an interesting change, as America has been unusually religious for a developed country for a long time. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 11:24, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The group Black Atheists of America was founded by Ayanna Watson this black woman's comments seem to be appropriate.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 13:25, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Africa didn't have much paganism and I am unaware of any secular societies. In the North, Islam predominated and there were pockets of Christianity in the East (such as Ethiopia). Of non-Abrahamic religious societies, cultures were mostly animist. Slaves mainly came from West Africa which was mostly Muslim or Animist. In the broadest definition of Atheism (lack of belief in God) yes, you could say many animist cultures were atheists (as in some cases their mystical beliefs were limited to spirits and natural beings, at least those which were not pantheistic). In the sense of secular-rational-atheism (little to no spiritual belief) I am not aware of any pre-20th century culture throughout the world that was except the rarest and smallest very temporary experiment. There were cases of religious/spiritual tolerance, coexistence and even low levels of religious influence, but secular or atheist in the modern sense? No.
 * There is something grotesque and tragic about an oppressed people believing in a religion which sanctioned their oppression. Shabi  DOO  13:44, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait, Islam or Christianity? Because let's not forget who kidnapped and sold the people in the first place.
 * Getting off topic here, but it's a critical component of history, because of that whole adage of not learning from history and repeating it. African nations sold criminals into slavery, then found there was no one to do the menial tasks that societies depend upon, so they had to continue to sell ever more people into slavery and soon they began fighting with each other just to kidnap and sell themselves into slavery until their empires collapsed inward and then the colonial powers just waltzed in and took everything.  This is important, because today we have private prisons and prisoners effectively being used as forced labor for corporations, a lesson we should've learned from the history of Africa.  But we don't learn it because it fits neither the Left's narrative of Africa being this completely innocent land of Noble Savages perfectly in tune with Gaia until the evul yeropeons showed up, nor does it fit the Right's narrative of being ever tougher on crime always resulting in a safer society.  14:22, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * What a condescending and bigoted mindset lol. Nothing says cultural awareness more than demanding people assimilate to *your* beliefs or they'll be viewed as pitiable! Is it really so difficult for adults to divorce the actions of bad actors from an all-encompassing belief system? It's almost satirical how you portray anti-religion and racism to go hand in hand. 69.60.33.176 (talk) 14:40, 8 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Yeah, CRT is an academic subject and atheism is an incoherent demographic. Apparently, CRT is more of a POV than a theory and in brief says:

1. Recognition that race is not biologically real but is socially constructed and socially significant.
 * So far, so good.

2. Acknowledgement that racism is a normal feature of society and is embedded within systems and institutions, like the legal system, that replicate racial inequality.
 * Maybe. But which institutions? Certainly not at the colleges and universities where racial justice ideas are taught. That would be an odd way to perpetuate racism.

3. CRT recognizes that racism is codified in law, embedded in structures, and woven into public policy. CRT rejects claims of meritocracy or “colorblindness.” CRT recognizes that it is the systemic nature of racism that bears primary responsibility for reproducing racial inequality.
 * Which laws? Which structures? It can't be everywhere, I hope. One can not escape from everywhere. The problem of identifying the loci of racism is open. Georgia voting laws is an example, I guess.

4. Recognition of the relevance of people’s everyday lives to scholarship. This includes embracing the lived experiences of people of color, including those preserved through storytelling, and rejecting deficit-informed research that excludes the epistemologies of people of color.
 * I guess this is an educated way of saying people of color should be listened to. Yeah, I guess so, though it already seems quotidian. UncleKrampus (talk) 01:23, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Trying my hand at learning Dutch
I originally wanted to learn Afrikaans but could not find any classes online nor decent apps.

Using Duolingo to learn Dutch which I am quickly learning.

Ik eet de boterham. --Sheeple (talk) 20:40, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't be too hard to find resources to learn Afrikaans. There are free resources online and you can always buy the Teach Yourself Afrikaans or Colloquial Afrikaans Complete Course (they usually come with CDs or whatever the modern equivalent is now). You don't need to have duolinguo to learn a language. When I improve my language skills I use "Ankidroid" which is a free app. You can create your own vocabulary cards using excel which you import into a deck of cards. Ankidroid is completely free so you don't need to pay or build up hearts or stars and you can make as many decks of vocabulary cards or sentences as you like. As I have said before...memorising vocabulary and learning the grammar is 10% of the work and practice speaking with native speakers is the other 90% of it. Your progress goes up exponentially when you practice speaking, making a shit ton of mistakes and improving. There are lots of resources online to find live language exchanges with people.
 * Dutch will be somewhat more challenging to learn than Afrikaans (you'll have to learn a fair bit of irregular verbs and their conjugations and if a noun is common or neutral gender or not) but it would certainly be more useful than Afrikaans. You have the Netherlands, Belgium, Suriname, Sint Martins, Aruba, Curacao and Barbuda. Having said that, everyone there is almost perfectly bilingual so you'll have to insist on practising in Dutch. The first sentence I could put together in Dutch was: De hoond heeft een hoofdpijn (which amused my friends a lot). There are a lot of Dutch sentences which are recognisable by English speakers if you put a little effort into it:
 * Dit boek is beter dan dat boek. De nieuw boek is fantastis. Hier is de rode appel. Dit is een glass water. De lamp is kaput. War is mijn bier? Dat koekje is oud. War is mijn blauwe sok? Shabi  DOO  08:15, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Nigeria bans Twitter
Well, this ought to make all the "all this Trump-type extremism in modern politics is caused by social media" people happy, hmhmhm...-Flandres (talk) 02:16, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * But now how will the prince of Nigeria contact investors?!?! 02:37, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Back in the day, when I was young (Well, younger), his highness used to send by physical mail large, well-stuffed envelopes that had multiple documents, letters, and photocopies of bank statements to a prospective savior. I used to get on average some 4-6 a year.  And I was grateful had the sense to read, laugh, and discard. Kencolt (talk) 12:40, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Internet censirship is never airtight, but it depends on the system. I'd be interested to see how they intend to enforce the prohibition. Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 02:58, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The BBC tells me that tech-savvy users are using UPN's. Which, curiously, is how many people watch the BBC in Spain.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:25, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * So basically the same workaround most Chinese people use. 16:47, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Internet censorship doesn't have to be airtight to work. The people of China and North Korea are very indoctrinated. After a person goes through indoctrination, they generally become resistant to changing their views. As far as Hong Kong, many college Chinese students in Western countries are taking the Chinese governments side rather than the Hong Kong protestors side. If the Chinese economy faces a big economic crisis though, the communists could be thrown out. Bilsonius (talk) 18:01, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You cited an opinion article to back up an assertion about political views within two populations. Do you honestly expect to be taken seriously? 18:08, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Guys, this is a troll. 18:16, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Exactly consider his comment striked . Harry Potter (talk) 23:25, 6 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Er... It looks like trump is happy, rather than the other way round. Looks like he won't return to Twitter even if they let him back. Meow Purr 11:12, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Like father, like son
Biden cooperated with segregationists in the Senate, gutted the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and authored the 1994 crime bill which destroyed the lives of many black Americans. Now unearthed text messages show that crackhead SOB Hunter used the n-word. Anyone surprised? RW reader (talk) 22:01, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You actually read the Gateway Pundit, you might want to go to certain places where they actually believe the bullshit they post. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 22:11, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * A few other news outlets are reporting on these leaks (although none are particularly trustworthy) and it’s not like they’re out of character for Hunter Biden. I believe it. Christopher (talk) 23:22, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It's certainly possible, yes. But I tend to reject anything largely posted to sketchy sources (New York Post, Daily Mail, Washington Examiner, RT, Daily Caller, none of these are that great). A previous "Joe Biden said the N-word" article from Gateway Pundit and others was bullshit after all. At any rate, if these people weren't Democrat politicians, I suspect that many of the readers of these fake news sites would have no absolutely no problem with the n-word being spoken, so this sort of whiny article can be safely ignored. The joys of psychological projection at work. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 23:42, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Am I the only one a bit suspicious at the fact that there's another guy who showed up just to push the Dixiecrat fallacy? Plutocow (talk) 02:31, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * "Bu- but everyone who says the truth I don't want to hear must be pushing some fallacy!!11!11!!!1!11!11!!1111!!1111!!1!!" RW reader (talk) 03:37, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Couldn't have better responded to Plutocow's typical third-rate inputs. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 03:47, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * you guys won't change each other opinions over this subject. I'd like to ask to both of you to find another subject to talk about otherwise you'll end up with an interactional ban. Now, don't get me wrong, I'd support this iban right now, but I'd hate to see another sanction poll on ATIM or, (what would be even worse), another coop to resolve this. We don't have check user, so it's almost impossible to prove if someone's a sock on RW anyway. GeeJayK (talk) 03:58, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem is USHistoryAnalyzer is already topic banned on history, if I recall, and the edit style so far is suspiciously similar partisan whitewashing and/or presentism. No matter, should this new user go down this path, the edits will largely be reverted like they have been, with another topic ban if it gets too annoying. As I said, Conservapedia I imagine will welcome these sort of edits, they'd be better off there. (Except that I suspect that possibly Conservapedia is almost too insane even for this "Dixiecrat tag team". What's a Dixiecrat who hasn't gone full Schlafly bonkers gonna do?) PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 12:19, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This is entire topic is concern trolling. Someone should just collapse it.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 16:35, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * RW reader (talk) 16:54, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh but really, it is a pleasure to see these idiots flay around hysterically saying "but, but, but HB said that word he's not allowed to say!" It doesn't occur to them that the general public is indifferent. Hunter Biden is only one guy in America. White guys still are a vulgar bunch. That's what you think is newsworthy. Heh, heh, heh. Losers.UncleKrampus (talk) 17:13, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Body integrity dysphoria (Conservative talking point on trans issues)
So apparently there's a rare disorder, BID or BIID, where the person's mind does not recognize a body part as "belonging". Their leg, for instance, is a foreign object, and they desire to have it amputated. It has recently become a Conservative talking point to undermine the Trans movement, because a Trans man removing his breasts is equated to a person amputating their arm.

How would you counter this talking point? 21:03, 4 June 2021 (UTC)


 * It would be nice if there were an objective reason for the difference. But, there is a subjective difference that seems sound enough. One is not crippled by the removal of fatty tissue. Breasts are not like arms or legs.
 * I once met a child who had six fingers on one hand. They said one finger was going to be removed. If everybody had eleven fingers, I recon that would seem strange.UncleKrampus (talk) 21:58, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I would point out that trained psychologists generally know the difference. It is their job after all. 22:17, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * it should not surprise anyone that a condition to do with ones own body image would have much in common with other conditions dealing with body image, but lumping the all together and saying they are same thing is wrong. the specifics of someones particular issues specific to them is what tell us if one or other condition is indicated, how damaging it might be and what course of action might be advised. there is no likely to be a one size fits all approach, and it is disingenuously conflating one condition with another, as if to say why are we for one form of self mutilation and not another. why indeed. i still have my foreskin. do those without feel like horrible freaks mutilated at birth against your will? i suspect most people dont. some very vocally do want us to think they have been mutilated. others think its female circumcision that puts the mutilation into ones genitals. i am sure that some folk do consider the removal of the breasts as mutilation. some might consider adding breasts or increasing the size of already existing ones mutilation. that tattoo you have is an eyesore and you have been mutilated.
 * if not being made by mental health professionals about a specific case, but instead a broad comparisons made by dumb fucks about a medical procedure that some trans men undertake being the same as a rare and extreme condition where those with it ultimately seek the removal of an unwanted but otherwise healthy body part can be countered easily with 'fuck off you prick'. why someone would opt for the removal of a body, what they believe would be the outcome and the implications for their mental and physical health should would all need to addressed and would make any comparisons false. there is likely to be much divergence among trans people, surgery would not be appropriate for all nor even desired. such comparisons are trolling and dnftt AMassiveGay (talk) 12:22, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit late to this party, but I've been trans for 11 years and IME it's not that new of a talking point unfortunately. Fundamentally, they are only superficially similar - transgenderism is a lot more than just non-identification with one's genitals. It would be highly unusual for someone to have genital issues sans any other gender issues, whereas it's very common (and actually, the current typical) for transgender people to not have surgeries, or even hormones. Even then, it's not as reductive as just wanting the penis amputated, it's wanting different, pre-established genitals. And even then, loss of limb is clearly massively dysfunctional in current society, whereas converting my dick into a vagina hasn't really disabled me at all in any way (I was sterile already). Equally, IIRC people with BID who get amputations often go on to experience phantom limbs anyway, whereas phantom genitals after SRS is rare, implying a core difference in the functioning of the cortical homunculi between the two. But at the end of it all... so what? If it's proven that amputation is superior to pharmacological and psychosocial interventions in improving wellbeing in people with BID... what's the problem? Their whole argument sort of fractally falls apart tbh. Effervescent Bubble (talk) 01:35, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

When homophobes say that "gay people hate straight people"
I would bet my life that you would be very hard pressed to find a gay person who has legit hate towards a straight person. I am sure that there might be a small group of gays who hate straight people as there is extreme in any group. --Boterham (talk) 02:18, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Exactly. It would be a more accurate generalisation that straight people, especially Muslims hate gay people. Harry Potter (talk) 02:23, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That isn't necessarily true. While I'm straight, I do not dislike homosexuals. The number of straight people who legitimately dislike homosexuals is far outweighed by those who do not. CarolinaSouthern (talk) 02:56, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * There's a single gay person I hate, and I'm ashamed to say I've caught myself invoking minor homophobic slurs when discussing or remembering him. Not a justification, but his sexuality was rolled into what made him so loathesome to me, sort of like the Baron Harkonnen or a backwoods horndog with a baker's dozen of kids and multiple baby-mommas: it's an accent that just sticks in your head. He was catty and extremely passive-aggressive, refused to help with heavy stuff when it was his fuggin' job (I actually caught him pretending to hold a dresser in place when we were adjusting a load, he just giggled), showed up to work late half the time, and broke like three TVs in the year and a half I worked with him because he refused to use the company-provided packing materials ("It's a local, who cares?"). So in that context, "mincing little shit" has escaped these not-so-progressive lips (which was and is wrong). Artificius (talk) 04:21, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I have to admit, they've got a point here. Same with pretty much any insult ever. The Blade of the Northern Lights (<font face="MS Mincho" color="black">話して下さい ) 17:00, 9 June 2021

Are we sure this isn't a bit of a straw man? I just did a duck duck go search on "gays hate straights". Obviously I got a handful of hits because it's the internet - but not that many. In any event "hate" is a pretty strong self-destructive emotion. I don't think that I actually "hate" any individual. Getting that emotion going for entire masses anonymous individuals would be pretty strenuous.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:19, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not an apologist for the homophobe community. Some have seriously suggested that the real homophobes tend to be occult homosexuals themselves. That would make them gays with psychological problems, I suppose. This shit is never simple. UncleKrampus (talk) 17:32, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The term to search I think is "heterophobia", which funnily enough we have an article on. Even with this term, there are only a few articles I see on Google. It seems to exist in a few people, but it's not terribly common. I certainly can't think or Google anyone using heterophobia as a political strategy (compared to the many political parties around the world using homophobia as a political strategy) so I can't see it as being even remotely comparable. As far as the virulent homophobe≈closeted homosexual, yes, that's Haggard's Law basically. Plenty of examples in that article. It's not always the case, of course, but it happens enough. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 19:01, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * There's no way for Gay people to be unrelated to Straight people as almost by definition most Gay people exist because of the actions of two Straight-ish people, so anti-Straight bigotry would harm the families of Gay people too. Compare to Racism, where different ethnicities can be excluded without some groups harming their own families.  19:36, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I know of LGTBQ+ people who have had such a grueling childhood and in the 20s meet a community of like minded people and don't want to spend a second of their free time away from their LGTBQ+ friends. Especially gay guys who have been bullied may also have anxiety around straight people, especially frat-boy types or Mr. Awesomes or hyper-sexualised women. Is that hatred towards straight people? I doubt it in most cases though I know in a tiny minority it exists. I suppose a better question could be: even if there was widespread heterophobia (which there isn't)...what could actually be done about it? To what extent could an LGTBQ+-heterophobic sub community discriminate or persecute straight people? How far reaching would their invective be? Would the harm they inflict not be a speck of dust compared to the mountain of viscous homophobic verbal violence, assault, slander, bullying, life-ruining horror that happens every day? Shabi  DOO  20:23, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You don't even have to be gay for that. I've been known to use the 'breeder' slur on occasion myself.  I can't help but think of the act of begetting children as an unwise and heedless act that will do your life options and your finances no favors.  It puts you at the risk of the death sentence called child support.  And you either did it voluntarily, which strikes me as the moral equivalent of sticking your head into a running jet turbine; or haplessly and carelessly, in which case obvious stereotypes apply.  Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 21:01, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The same could be said about pets. There are good reasons to have kids or a family, and it's not for everyone of course.  My real complaint about children is that, well, if it was an intelligent designer who decided that people who are the least responsible when it comes to birth control should be the most likely to reproduce, it's proof that said creator is a malevolent jerk.  21:24, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Do homophobes actually say 'gay people hate straight people'? its a simple enough matter to show gay people do not hate straight people. discomfort and unease around straight folk maybe, but hate? ive not seen any. but do homophobes actually think or say this? ive not really seen this sentiment from any homophobes i have encountered. i am unaware of any homophobic public figures make any statement close to gays hate straights. is there any real world examples? if this is really a thing, then why do think this or how do they rationalise it?

we dont need to apologise to homphobes for the traumas they have inflicted. even less need to apologise for something no one is actually saying. why must we explain anything to homophobes? why must we justify anything? excuse anything? let homophobes explain their plainly observable hate because lgbt folk are not required to defend their right exist. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:57, 11 June 2021 (UTC)