RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive337

A couple of new pages I made
I was told to post some of the new pages I made here to help them get more exposure and input. They are mostly prominent scientists I wanted to be featured here. Thanks all! Neo Stalinist (talk) 21:57, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Jonas Salk
 * Frederik Banting
 * Maurice Hilleman
 * Edward Jenner
 * Alexander Fleming
 * Tu Youyou
 * M.S. Swaminathan
 * John Enders
 * Virginia Apgar
 * Alfred Sommer
 * Albert Sabin
 * David Nalin
 * Chidambaram Subramaniam

Antisemitism
Anyone who accuses critics of Israel as being carte blanche antisemites is an opportunistic bastard full stop. Linda Sarsour is not an antisemite for wanting to hold Israel accountable for its crimes against Palestine, hell she even said "Israel has a right to exist" and has gotten shit from Hamas for saying that. We live in a dark day and age when wanting to advance the cause of justice is met by opportunistic and shameless misappropriating of a horrible ideology to suit their own dubious partisan ends. — Oxyaena Harass  03:33, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Linda Sarsour's ongoing support of the Nation of Islam rather removes any question. Doesn't mean that the broader point, that criticizing Israel isn't inherently anti-Semitic, is wrong. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい )
 * More broadly, RationalWiki supports criticizing people's specific bad behavior even though we might agree with them otherwise (e.g., Dawkins). In the case of criticizing Israel, it is often used by the alt-right as a code for expressing broad antisemitism, which does not mean that criticism of Israel is unwarranted for specific actions. Bongolian (talk) 07:41, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That's true. Most criticisms of Israel aren't even supposed to be anti-Zionist, much less anti-Semitic. The only reason we think otherwise is because neocons keep conflating legit criticisms with Anti-Semitism. I am a secular Jew, so now you have a Jew's point of view on this. — Jeh2ow Damn son!  13:50, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I have criticism of Israel but not the Jewish people. The Israeli Government is the one that does highly questionable and or inhumane activities. It would be like people from the UK criticizing the US government or people from Japan criticizing the Mexican government. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:30, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * My actual interest in Israel relates entirely to the US government and its foreign policy. I am very vague about what benefits people in the USA get from our role as the chief prop of Israeli militarism, and how those benefits outweigh the fact that a third of the globe hates us for it.  We're supposed to take a disinterested stand in the Old World's tribal conflicts, and this is why.  This has next to nothing to do with Jews as Jews, and at any rate even the most fervently pro-Israel Jews in the USA tend IME to have a bit more nuanced position than nominally Christian false prophecy enthusiasts, who think that stuff Jesus said about 'blessed are the peacemakers' doesn't apply to them.  Makes you think more kindly about burning heretics at the stake. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 03:20, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Just to be clear here, one can be antizionist without being antisemitic. Indeed, I'd dare call it antisemitic to think Israel represents the entirety of the Jewish people, as if Jews were one monolithic entity, that's no better than the bullshit Nazis come out with, since it necessarily implies a hive-mind when there is none. — Oxyaena Harass  08:02, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Personally, I support Israel's right to exist, but you're right. It's not supposed to mean every single Jew in the planet actually has something to do with Israel, it's supposed to say that Jews don't need a state. Of course, some groups like Nuterei Karta have a habit of saying bullshit like "Jews have been living in peace for 2000 years without a state". There are two problems with this. First off, Jews haven't had it easy during those 2000 years, because of things like pogroms, massacres, and of course, the Holocaust. Second, they forgot about the Judea province of the Roman Empire, which had existed from 6 CE, to 135 CE. The State of Israel, meanwhile, is a relatively recent state, being formed in 1948. During the time period of 135 CE and 1948, the Jews were living in terrible times. Now, you are actually making it as if the Jews need Israel to live in peace, which is against your ideology. — Jeh2ow Damn son!  15:51, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It may have been a good idea to create a Jewish state in the aftermath of WWII. It was a bad idea to give them one in Palestine, which they had no legitimate claim to and which was an area already peopled by warlike tribes with chips on their shoulders.  Personally, I'd have given them Upper Bavaria and Tyrol: temperate climate, nice scenery, good pastureland, and decent cuisine.  My peace plan for the Middle East would be to evacuate Jerusalem and peacefully detonate a hydrogen bomb on the site in such a way as to generate maximum cratering.  (There will be people who won't want to be evacuated from Jerusalem.  I wouldn't force them to leave.)  Jerusalem then becomes the world's designated dump for radioactive and toxic waste.  Dump it in the hole that was Jerusalem and nobody cares if the drums leak. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 16:54, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, let's make a nuclear disaster worse than Chernobyl and Fukushima combined and kill around 1 million people. Nothing inhumane about that. But seriously, there is only one way to get both sides happy about Jerusalem. Israel gets West Jerusalem, while Palestine gets East Jerusalem. It'll be like a capital Niagra Falls. — Jeh2ow Damn son!  17:08, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You must've misread me, I don't believe Jews need Israel to live in peace, I believe Israel shouldn't even exist, nor any state for that matter. It's settler colonialism, and the problem with that is that it fucks over people who already live in the region you want to colonize. — Oxyaena Harass  18:13, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Wrong. Both sides want East Jerusalem because that’s where all of the holy sites are. 18:52, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Then there's only one other option. Tel Aviv will go to Israel, while Palestine builds a new city. And right now, they're building one called . As for Jerusalem, the city will be checkpoint free, and anyone can enter for free without a passport. But then again, no one really needs Jerusalem, because religion isn't true, so it would only mean anything to actually religious Jews and Muslims and Christians. — Jeh2ow Damn son!  03:19, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * All the Jews in Israel aren't likely to go anywhere else, so decolonizing the place is a rather infeasible option to put it mildly, I support a one state solution, but only as a temporary one. The ultimate goal should be to abolish states entirely, they bring nothing but misery. — Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  12:06, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * since the 'ultimate goal' is but a distant fantasy, what does your one state solution look like? AMassiveGay (talk) 17:51, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The only reason it is "but a distant fantasy" is because assholes like yourself like getting buttfucked by the system too much to actually change it. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  18:03, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * do what exactly? what are doing about it? its your all or nothing approach thats ensures nothing changes. you are little more than a capitalist stooge AMassiveGay (talk) 18:17, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * and you've not really answered the question of what your one state solution looks like AMassiveGay (talk) 18:18, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * My one-state solution would be based on Bosnia. Both the State of Palestine and the State of Israel would exist as polities within the overall country whose name would probably be tough to decide. Both polities would have broad authority to decide on their own laws with their own legislatures, but both would send representatives to an overall parliament and elect a single leader. Jerusalem would have both halves merged and be governed jointly with free access to citizens from both Israel and Palestine. Jerusalem would set its own pilgrimage regulations for foreigners. 18:52, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * So, like Flanders and Wallonia in Belgium. But there are obvious problems with the idea. Neither state gets sovereignty, and I doubt they could work together without war/massacres. That's why only a two-state solution works. Because we don't need another 70 years of violence. — <font color="Red">Jeh2ow <font color="Blue">Damn son!  20:04, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * But a two state solution also won't work, because neither side will accept officially losing custodianship of the holy sites to the other. Like, I fully acknowledge that I just proposed one of the absolute worst ways to run a country. Bosnia is a bit of a clusterfuck now. But I frankly don't see any other way to end the region's bloodshed. Decades of political backwardsness and economic problems strikes me as better than the status quo. 21:03, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, less people in the region give a fuck about religion, so Jerusalem and the holy sites will become obsolete soon. — <font color="Red">Jeh2ow <font color="Blue">Damn son!  21:09, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I highly doubt the issue will disappear anytime within the next few decades. 21:13, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, it would if we stop arguing about jack shit and start finding solutions for everyone. — <font color="Red">Jeh2ow <font color="Blue">Damn son!  21:15, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * People much smarter than both of us have been trying for more than fifty years to find solutions for everyone there. 21:17, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I have a hard time believing moderates like you actually have good ideas. If you want to know how to fix problems, maybe you should take a look at all the dead bodies near the green line, like I did. You can't hide the fact that if only one state exists, there would be another Darfur. So stop arguing and start solving. — <font color="Red">Jeh2ow <font color="Blue">Damn son!  21:22, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * And you can't hide the fact that if two states exist there would inevitably be a war between them, and we'd go back to some version of the status quo. 21:25, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * We would also have a peace treaty. Israel's settlements in the West Bank get disbanded, while Hamas is dissolved. Both states would also become secular, democratic socialist states. If either country violates the treaty, there will be consequences. Is that enough for you? — <font color="Red">Jeh2ow <font color="Blue">Damn son!  21:29, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I see at least four impossibilities there. Hamas will not agree to disband itself because it sees itself as an essential aspect of Palestinian self-defense. Israel will not agree to dismantle its settlements because it sees those as essential parts of its self-defense. Israel will not secularize because it considers the Jewish religion to be part of its base identity. Also, the idea of either Israel or Palestine become "democratic socialist" is possibly the least workable of these ideas.
 * Here's the thing. If you think that there's a simple solution that works for everyone, then you'll have to answer one question. Over the last fifty years, why have none of the foreign mediators or neither side figured it out yet? 21:35, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Because people like you don't look at the pros and cons of anything. In fact, you take right-wing ideas on several topics, like gun control and Medicare. We have an entire category for people like you, called Centrist stupidity. Why can't you find solutions for everyone? — <font color="Red">Jeh2ow <font color="Blue">Damn son!  21:43, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * that's just fucking facile. there are no magical solutions. one state? two state? doesn't matter. they are as good as each. building trust and relationships to thrash things out and make the compromises needed to do anything. how is that done? and its not just trust between Israel and Palestine that's absent. whose left these days trusted by both sides to mediate? and how can anyone trust that treaty violations have consequences when we've seen too often that they don't?
 * theres little trust anywhere these days. how do you propose to get any kind of plan implemented?AMassiveGay (talk) 22:21, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Maybe I can give both leaders a paper, and see if they can sign it. Or, we could let the United Nations make a vote on both an Israeli state, and a Palestinian state. This happened back in 1947. Israel and other countries voted yes, while the Arab world voted no. A war ensued, and it's the reason we even have a conflict. Had the Arabs and Jews agreed, 250,000 people wouldn't be dead. This isn't about binational and two-state solutions, anymore. This is about helping others and democracy. — <font color="Red">Jeh2ow <font color="Blue">Damn son!  22:37, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * So you're gonna insult me because I think we should evaluate ideas realistically?. 22:47, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Jeh2ow, you have a unsophisticated understanding of the Israeli problem and very naive proposals on how to deal with them. Calling trash on people because they are moderates is also one of the worst forms of arguments there are. It's hypergeneralizing inanity. Consider listening to their nuanced proposals and giving nuanced feedback then just dismissing and handwaving people's proposals. Israel is one of the most intensive, complex, multi-player, multifactional conflict that's out there where every solution has hundreds of repercussions. As amassivegay said...very facile. Shabi  DOO  22:58, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I was not trash talking ng anyone, but I will apologize if I did. I get irritable sometimes. And ShabiDOO is right: we can't argue for no reason. — <font color="Red">Jeh2ow <font color="Blue">Damn son!  23:15, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with both sides here, so called "moderates" are annoying because all they offer are mere band aid "solutions" that almost never do anything to solve the core issues (the other thing being that the "center" is actually moving further right as we go along), and the issue of Israel and Palestine is a complex one, and I don't think a two state solution is ultimately workable. I think Duce's is probably the most practical solution. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  00:36, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * So you support cities like Tel-Aviv being bombed and stuff, is that right? Because if there's one thing I know, violence is never the answer to anything. — <font color="Red">Jeh2ow <font color="Blue">Damn son!  01:12, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Woah, woah, calm down now. I didn't say anything of the sort, but I do expect violence to continue into the near future, changes aren't immediate after all. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  01:17, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I know. Once the two-state solution is put in place, there could be protests, both by Palestinian nationalists and the Israeli far-right. But after several years of coexistence, they finally come to terms. (And maybe have gay sex) — <font color="Red">Jeh2ow <font color="Blue">Damn son!  01:21, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * or more likely what is already happening will continue happening until its logical conclusion ie. continue reducing the Palestinian demographic and increasing the Israeli control via settlements in the west bank, until Israel can simply annex west bank proper. its a one state solution with no need for negotiation, the Palestinians having lost all bargaining power. its not like anyones going to stop Israel adding more settlements or forcing them to remove any. and now they have the us seal of approval while the middle east has other distractions for us. Israel can just run out the clock AMassiveGay (talk) 15:55, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Removal of HG topic
Why was my long post about the HG removed?Machina (talk) 03:45, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Search your feelings, for you probably already know the truth. 05:57, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * 07:41, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * "Noise Annoys" Bongolian (talk) 08:10, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Sky Pilot
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3OTY4dMVBM — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  11:58, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm so mad at myself, so sad, and I'm so happy listening to this one. Not because I don't think anyone will ever come up, but because the mean bone in me is so intensely satirized already that I don't want to make jokes about it. I want people to come up, and maybe notice that mean bone when it's not gonna hurt them.  Art does things to me.  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:29, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Being said, in context, considering every post I've launched before now, I don't have a response song to this. Nothing I've heard before works. That's really cool, I've never been cornered like this before. Love you guys.  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:56, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIUHrL1NxAI I am also very drained, to be honest.Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:02, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

UK and Pro-Kurdish fighters
Why is the UK charging people who fought the Islamic state by joining with Kurdish forces with terrorism offenses? They are even charging their parents apparently. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 00:05, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * because the law was changed so that just travelling to a specific designated area is terrorism. ostensibly to warn off people from joining is, where gathering the necessary evidence to prosecute returning is fighters has been nigh on impossible, what with there being a war on and all. the real problem with the law is that it vdoesn't discriminate between combatants and aid workers. private uk citizens going off to fight in wars that the uk is not directly involved in is frowned upon in general, while with the specifics of syria, a conflict parliament voted to limit its involvement in, with questions asked in parliament after airstrikes not too long later. they were warned not to go and they were warned to leave when the law changed. what did they think was going happen? even if current legislation is a blunt instrument. its not exactly wise to give citizens leave to play soldier in murky multi sided conflicts, especially one where now those who have chosen to remain with kurds will now likely be fighting against a nato ally.
 * I couldn't find any recent stories covering it, though I know there have. I could only see stories months old at the latest, and going back 3-4 years AMassiveGay (talk) 02:10, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I see there is link in wigo for a recent report. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:26, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Because if you fight with an army of people with mildly dark skin, you're a terrorist. — <font color="Red">Jeh2ow <font color="Blue">Damn son!  03:20, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * that's complete fucking dogshit. theres legitimate criticism to be had, but that requires actually making an attempt to see what has been going on. cut that shit out AMassiveGay (talk) 13:26, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Who told you that? I've never heard anyone over here calling someone a terrorist, because they attacked people that aren't white... Tinribmancer (talk) 15:31, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No, because they're fighting with people who aren't white. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  15:36, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This Guardian story from a couple of days ago talks about it. I think it's a lot more complicated than some people not being white.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 21:44, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Noooooo, this is a bad topic, and I'm doing it nyway
This is the awful culmination of everything. I'll just do it anyway.

this is the awful culmination of everything.

I am not an MRA, I am a liberal progressive, you do you, libertarian is a fucking redundant political stance couching conservativism, MRAs eat my ass independent kind of guy. Rape is abhorrent. Now it's a hate crime. Yes, good. Is rape against a man a also a hate crime? I'm heated, I'm pissed like you'd never see me pissed, and I do defer the idea that rape should be prosecuted, any steps are fucking steps. But the fuck are you talking about, hate crime. rape as a hate crime, yes, rape is what, confusing? As a gendered issue, ok, yes, very good precedent to make rape a hate crime. but what the fuck are you talking about, man hates women, rapes women? I hate the fact that it's a conversation too. But it is. Grossness alert, I've woken up still drunk to a BJ with a girl I would never ever have a conversation like this with. I have also been targeted at a bar by a guy who thought he could "turn" me. I also fooled around with a girl who was too drunk to consent. Heavy petting is not part of the conversation, but it's weird and nuanced.

I'm very upset with this guy, and I don't feel personally challenged by this ruling. But I do feel personally left out, as far as who is protected. The ruling being, a legit rape case is a legit hate crime. If you're not tracking that, you're not getting me. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 06:05, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Does this really place man on woman rape, a despicable act, on a different tier from any other rape, I guess is what I'm asking. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 06:17, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * At the very least, it would count as sexual assault. It was unwanted sexual contact with no consent. Plain and simple. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 15:15, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It's stupid, though I don't see how the judgment would be on paper limited to male on female rape. Of course, I'm sure the female supremacists will come up with a justification for applying it strictly to that and the government will eat it up. 17:02, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

im not really sure of the background to all this, and Im certainly not a legal expert, nor even too familiar with new York. so for clarity, what has actually happened here? from what I gather, this is part of civil proceedings against haggis, and this ruling just means it can go to trial. would this have been the end of it if the ruled for haggis? as I understand it, this is all usually a rarely used piece of legislation. was this only option to seek redress? and what happens at trial? will they have to prove it was hate crime or prove there was a rape? or both? if that case is lost, does it then mean rape is not a hate crime on its own after all? I am also not seeing anything in this that puts 'man on woman rape, a despicable act, on a different tier from any other rape' why could it not apply woman on man? dunno if there would an issue it were man on man or woman on woman. from what I am seeing here, we shouldn't be getting too outraged because rape may or may not be a hate crime now. what we should be getting outraged about is this appears to a work around to get the thing in to court in this place. not a criminal trial, I might add, a civil one. its also cannot good that this is a local law, suggesting rape victims get to play a post code lottery for justice. how is this done in other states? better or worse? how does it compare to similar cases in other countries? the UK we've had actual criminal prosecutions for such cases, not merely civil cases. are we doing better or worse than the us? if its a hate crime or not really seems unimportant AMassiveGay (talk) 17:44, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * There is the issue of people not taking female on male rape as an issue. Not only is there whacko female supremacists (obviously they exist) but you also have guys who laugh at other guys who get raped by women. Many men suffer in silence as nobody believes them and this leads to an increase in suicides. All rape needs to be taken seriously. Nobody should have to go through it. I myself am a victim of sexual assault and it took me 10 years to say something. Reason: had a dumbass dad who would not take me seriously (go riddance), a sister who would laugh and a school who does not keep private matters private.. It is insanely difficult to come forward on issues like that. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:04, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I can appreciate there are issues surrounding around female on male cases, i'm just not sure this ruling specifically has any effect on that. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:22, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know if it means as much as I feel it ither. I know I started this one, but if reporting rape needs a workaround, that's a demerit on said society.  Trusting that cooler heads will prevail, gottw say, trying to make sense of the world, it's not an easy mountain to climb. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 09:56, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Went to the hospital yesterday after hurting my foot badly after falling and I had the worst doctor ever
The doctor barely checked anything, missed very basic checks in vitals and hit into my wounded foot without apologizing. I also cut up my knee and he did not properly look at it. He just over looked it, the nurse was worried after seeing my cut up knee.

Really fun part: the hospital claims that they are the best in the county. But they are the only hospital in the fucking county!!!! --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 16:08, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * At least you have hospitals that function. The only hospital in my neighborhood shut down 3 years ago, and the nearest hospital is about a half-hour away. — <font color="Red">Jeh2ow <font color="Blue">Damn son!  21:18, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * half an hour away isn't that far. its probably typical anywhere outside a city centre and not super remote. in the uk at least. where I grew up in Essex, bout 30 miles out of london so not wilderness by any stretch, its probably at least 30 min drive to a hospital. probs over two hours if you had to take a bus. you could walk to a drs surgery easy enough though. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:17, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I've been to the ER one time. I've got I think 4 hospitals nearby.  I was throwing up blood in the morning, went to work, threw up more blood and got told to go to a doctor.  So I went to an urgent care, because I don't know, got my vitals checked by a young lady I went to high school with, that was funny, everything was going fine, then I had to throw up again, and it was all bright red blood.  They give you this little blue sock to throw up in, and I filled it.  So it sucks now, and she calls the resident in and he calls my situation into the ER and tells me I can't drive myself, so I have to call in a big favor that I still haven't paid back, get taken to the ER by a buddy, get the VIP treatment, except I'm kind of done throwing up blood.  So I'm waiting in a room for like two hours, and then the staff comes bustling in, and they've gotta get info out of me.  They know I'm puking blood, but they haven't seen it, so they have to check if there's blood in my stool.  The nurses literally good cop/bad copped me here, they pulled my pants down and I jumped, bad cop said "I'm just pulling your pants down" and I'm like "I know, I didn't mean to jump" and good cop says "just focus on making your bottom as soft as possible" and I say "I get it, but this is a process for me" and then boop, and my anus is like "I'm not doing this" and they both start shouting "relax" at me, and I say to myself "few creatures in this world get a dignified end" because that's funny, I low-key thought I might be dying, I didn't really want a finger in my butt, but that was what was happening and the thought-process worked.  Turns out there was blood in my stool, who knew?  Had a nasty tear in my esophagus.  Before I got put under, they told me they would put a tool down my shit, it had a camera, clips and lasers, and they'd just kind of decide what to do when they saw it.  I was like "OK, cool, good luck" and they were like "No, this is serious."  I said "I understand, what would you like me to do?"  I was about to take anesthesia, be rendered unconscious and motionless, like, what is the more correct response to that?  When I came out of the anesthesia, the first thing I remember saying is "I feel as though time has passed."  And they told me it was all over, there was a tear in my esophagus and they clipped it.  I said "coulda used that for the rectal exam, eyyyyy."  The anesthesiologist still didn't like me. But the nurse who wheelchaired me back to my room and I had a fun time.  I later peed in my pants while attempting to get to the bathroom and hooked to an IV.  When the nurse watching me in that room eventually came in, and asked me if I needed anything, I said "do you have pants?  I kinda peed in mine."  She laughed at me and told me it happens a lot.  I told my parents what happened a few days after I got out of the hospital.  They were...  upset.  Mostly with me.  But I mean, what else was I going to do?  Think I was maybe going to die and get my parents all pissed off and worried in the room?  If I WAS about to die, I wanted it to be the best time.  I didn't want my parents worrying about me for it.Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:28, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

#KAG caps are here
https://www.amazon.com/Hat-Depot-Exclusive-America-Signature/dp/B07R6TVS1V/ref=sr_1_9?dchild=1&keywords=Donald+Trump&qid=1577548990&sr=8-9

Isn't this a bit early!? It's still 11 months before the elections! Also, the comment section...

There's alot of Trump shit on amazon, it seems... Tinribmancer (talk) 16:11, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Uighur camps
I wanna make an article about the Xinjiang Re-education camps and place it under the Islamophobia portal. This is unique, because usually conservative Muslim-haters all of a sudden criticize the treatment of the Uighurs. Of course, this could be because China, as well as Myanmar, are leftist countries, so the conservatives only really acknowledge Islamophobia if it's not in the West and takes place in a socialist country. — <font color="Red">Jeh2ow <font color="Blue">Damn son!  02:16, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I've seen a disturbingly large number of conservative Muslim-haters actually approve of what China is doing. 02:56, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I can't really argue with you like we did on the two-state solution, cause what can I say? An Islamophobe's gotta do what an Islamophobe's gotta do. But seriously, I am seeing a lot of conservatives defending Muslims in China and in Burma. But like I said: they only disapprove because COMMUNISM. — <font color="Red">Jeh2ow <font color="Blue">Damn son!  03:01, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * China isn't leftist by any means, nor is Myanmar. "Leftist" is about as meaningful a term as "rightist" anyway, it's too vague. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  12:14, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I know that "leftist" is too vague, but that's not the point. What's startling me is that Republicans are actually defending the Uighurs. Even Marco Rubio made an article about standing up for the Uighurs. — <font color="Red">Jeh2ow <font color="Blue">Damn son!  16:11, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * why is republicans defending uighurs startling? is not china the 'big threat' right now? one upping the enemy while loudly supporting freedoms and human rights. its a win win. why wouldn't they come out in support of the uighurs? there might even be some principled defence if there is no conflict with other concerns AMassiveGay (talk) 16:53, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Usually they are rancid anti-Muslim bigots. But now, all of a sudden, they're defending the Uighurs and Rohingyas in China and Myanmar, respectively. Yet when Muslims are treated poorly in America, they just pull a "they deserved it" on those Muslims. What China and Myanmar are doing, we here at RationalWiki can all unanimously agree, is terrible, but now conservatives are defending those Muslims. This is absolute hypocrisy. — <font color="Red">Jeh2ow <font color="Blue">Damn son!  17:17, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * So - what is the conspiracy theory or pseudoscience angle?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 19:29, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with conspiracy theories and pseudoscience. I'm just asking why Republicans are defending the Uighurs. — <font color="Red">Jeh2ow <font color="Blue">Damn son!  19:32, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * because you are over generalising, over simplifying, and stereotyping a whole lot of different things and its wrong footed you. you cannot combat bigots with this cartoon view of them. islamophobia in the west does not target all muslims equally. it targets muslims, or depictions of them, that we are familiar. those that we see in sizable populations already in our cities, looking no different to the ones responsible for the last terrorist atrocity. no different to ones we are at war with and they are already here. for some that's pure gold. race relations, Integration, immigration, war and terrorism all in an easily exploitable and scapegoatabe cummunity visually distinct, culturally alien, and with the wrong religion.
 * when you picture a muslim we all likely see the same swarthy bearded types in similar outfits. even if we know this is not all muslims, its the one we know, are familiar with, the ones who are the threat.
 * what do you see when you picture an Uighur? can you picture an Uighur? i bet what you are not picturing is an osama bin laden look a like that we cant help to visualise when you think of a muslim. the headline will tell you china, or Burma for the rohingyas. that's not Iraq. or iran. its unrelated to Israel. the muslim of the headline is now irrelevant. these are different muslims. we have different stereotypes for china. they are communists. doing evil communist things. re education camps are what we'd expect from them anyway. more sanctions probably help in a trade war too.
 * do you see any distinctions here? a populist politician will. lots of them. because these are different issues. islamophobia is not the only issue. there have been wars, and genocides, and terrorist attacks. they've been exploited for sure, but genuine issues with no solutions free from the worst hypocrisies.
 * but I don't see hypocrisy in republican stances on Uighurs and some of the appalling US immigration policies and what not. they are different issues, involving different parts of the world, different peoples. they exercise the base in different ways, and pretty much to the party line.
 * one last thing to consider is that republicans aren't the cartoonish evil villains you imagine. they are human beings. its not unreasonable to think there are things that we can all still agree on, I would hope at least some of them have lines they wouldn't cross. still some awful people though and doing some awful things.
 * much of this still relies on generalisations and probably misconceptions, with anything glaringly egregious someone will be quick to highlight, but I hope my point is clear - criticism of these things is easily dismissed if we are working from a caricature. we'll never ever see clear, unambiguous and unbiased pictures of anything, let alone with such murky topics, and there are many who try to keep us uninformed and ignorant of events by any means. we don't need to do their job for them. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:40, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Traditionally the Republican political class wing has been more neo-conservative than racial concerns (remember, the Southern Strategy is all about *exploiting* the racist rubes) and thus willing to defend democratic values over tyrannical ones. The United States for instance was against Serbia (Christians in general) and supported Bosnia and Herzegovina (Islam in general) in the 1990s Yugoslavia war, because it was clear that the Serbians were the aggressor, engaged in ethnic cleansing. This goes all the way down in conservatise media to be honest, for the most part -- stances against tyranny overrules any racial concerns. I actually am not seeing too many articles supporting China even in far right wing media sites such as Breitbart (the comments section, as always, is another story and shows that there are quite a few racist dittoheads out there, but still)... even Infowars is sympathetic to the plight of the Uighur (but oppressive government is a greater "clickbait" than ethnicity for that crowd). Hey, it's something sane people left and right can agree on, eh? Soundwave106 (talk) 23:16, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Unless of course it's a democratically elected socialist, you mean. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  23:23, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I guess. Anyways, I need serious help developing the article. — <font color="Red">Jeh2ow <font color="Blue">Damn son!  23:57, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

I’ll bet that those “conservatives” (or whatever they call themselves) who suddenly become concerned about the rights of Muslims when it comes to China and the Uighurs are simply an example of that old chestnut my enemy's enemy. I doubt that their objection is due to China’s (mostly pro forma) communism, though, and suspect it has more to do with seeing China as a geopolitical/-strategic opponent. ScepticWombat (talk) 07:57, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * China was never communist, it was always state capitalist. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  15:41, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually read RationalWiki's page on China. — <font color="Red">Jeh2ow <font color="Blue">Damn son!  18:24, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I know what I`m talking about, "communism" as an ideology is far more diverse than Marxism-Leninism, and China was not communist by any means, I'd argue it wasn't even socialist. See here for a detailing of my thought. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  18:45, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Not True Scotsmen  Communists then.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 20:19, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * the fundamental flaw within Marxist ideologies - they are all splitters AMassiveGay (talk) 20:43, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I get annoyed when people conflate communism in general with fucking Marxism-Leninism, and then dishonestly act as if all commies are MLs. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  21:45, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You're an exceptionally bad advert for whichever flavour of communism gets your pulse racing. Seriously, you could do wonders for the revolution just by shutting the fuck up. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 22:50, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You're barely even here anymore, why should I listen to some absentee douche? — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  10:47, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * STFU. There are legitimate criticisms of pretty much everything, including Oxyaena, but you have zero need to attack her like that. — <font color="Red">Jeh2ow  <font color="Blue">Damn son!  16:51, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Jeh. The Old Guards are pricks anyways. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  18:09, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a pretty shallow generalized and shallow criticism of the people who put in the time and effort to build the wiki you now have the privilege of using.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:45, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Apparantly, Bob_M, just about everybody is a prick or an asshole according to Oxyeana. I wonder how many people have just tuned out and simply added another user to their ignore list. Stay tuned for who the next prick or asshole is. Shabi  DOO  18:34, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Well whoever it is, it ain't me. (winks) — <font color="Red">Jeh2ow <font color="Blue">Damn son!  18:38, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Made a new fundie school article and it was a pain in the ass
Haven University, formerly the California Graduate School of Theology.

I know it looks like shit at this point. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 15:53, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Rationalzombie94. I did some clean up for you. Bongolian (talk) 18:57, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Philosophical question
Does a straw have one hole or two holes? 21:05, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Tres. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  21:23, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * As an engineer, I can answer that it has a single through hole. So from a technical stand point it is one hole.  MirrorIrorriM (talk) 00:21, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I need a Möbius plastic straw for extra earth-destroying power. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 04:11, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The number of holes depends on the manufacturing process. 23:38, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The mouth and the asshole are connected by a long tube just like the two ends of a straw. Does that mean that the mouth and the asshole are also just one hole? 01:46, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No, they're not. They're separate holes situated at the opposite ends of the internal digestive track. Only bilaterians have them, meaning a mouth and an anus. For animals that have only "one hole" look at cnidarians, which have the same hole to both ingest food and expel waste. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  14:18, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * So I have been reading the Wikipedia article on Hole which really clarifies all the questions. Also  MirrorIrorriM's comment above is good.  It seems we need to clear on whether we are talking about "through holes" or "blind holes".Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:52, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It depends on what you mean by hole. Is a hole like an orifice or an empty space or whatever else. It's contingent upon definitions and context which are human constructs meaning while the object may not change the answer will change if you shift the definition or context. That's the philosophical part. The funny part is humans are somewhat like straws with an opening at both ends and tube like mess in-between. Limited to the digestive system...How many holes do we have? Shabi DOO  03:41, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

"Reliable source"
What counts as a "reliable source" is subjective, and given this wiki's liberal bias it unfairly targets leftist sites as being "unreliable" just because they are on the left of things, not even paying attention to what these sources actually say. To compare leftist movements to the right is more than a bit of a false equivalency, as the left tends to (key word being tends, everyone's human) be rooted in more rational and nuanced analyses, and less knee-jerk reactions of things than the right. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  21:13, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Not at all correct, Just because a source conforms to your views doesn't mean that it's a reliable source, This is basic critical thinking stuff they teach you in college, Focusing on primary sources keeps us on par with wikipedia and prevents us for becoming like Conservapedia and Anarchopedia. Jaydogg1994 (talk) 00:05, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * What's Anarchopedia? Tinribmancer (talk) 00:12, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Anarchopedia. Jaydogg1994 (talk) 00:21, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Wow, they literally believe that the moon landing was a hoax? Holy shit... Tinribmancer (talk) 00:27, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This isn't Wikipedia, and I have nothing to do with "Anarchopedia." — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  11:55, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Regardless of Wikipedia, reading and citing primary sources is just good scholarship. The best historians, journalists and scientists do this. Bongolian (talk) 18:16, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with that, I just disagree that only centrist sources count as "reliable sources." — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  18:44, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * A lot depends upon what you mean by reliable. For me, individuals are reliable, while sources must ascribe opinions to individuals we accept as reliable. often opinion journalism is presented as evidence that some popular view of someone is so and so. I don't care about the opinions of little-known authors beyond their personal narratives. What they imagine to be true is no more compelling because I find their narrative to be agreeable.Ariel31459 (talk) 20:09, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

@Oxyaena Ariel31459 is right. It doesn't matter what the source's political position is. What matters is if it's accurate. Unless we're talking about Fox News. That shit is rarely accurate. — <font color="Red">Jeh2ow <font color="Blue">Damn son!  21:49, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * But it does entirely suck to watch people pick their sources based on what they enjoy believing. So, even if the source is good, the pundits are building a greenhouse-style version of the truth.  I was enamored with Qanon not because I believed it, but because I thought it was flat-earth level.  Then I listened to a Q believer.  Not a Q fundamentalist, nobody who would take a rifle to a pizza shop.  But they really, truly, believe some of this must be true.  And it's not fun to make fun of something like the Bible or the new Star Wars movie with somebody who loves it, it's not fun to argue with a Q supporter even if they don't believe all of it, but really like it.
 * So it's kind of the opposite of caring about the source's accuracy, but noticing what the political position is. It's that "truthiness" that Colbert coined.  Q support is insanely right wing and sympathetic to racism, and that is what needs to be gently pointed out. I got told that the whole "have to support Israel or your anti-semetic" is bullshit.  And yeah, that line of thinking definitely is how to tell a non-sequitur apart from real anti-Semitism, but then it was followed with "That's why all these politicians have dual-citizenships, because it's a cabal." and it's like "dude, no, that's the actual practical anti-Semitism coming out of your mouth." Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:51, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I once heard from a Neo-Nazi conspiracy theorist that Bernie Sanders was born in Israel, and that he also doesn't have American citizenship. First off, this sounds very familiar, and second off, it would be impossible for Bernie to have been born in Israel, mainly because Sanders was born on September 8th, 1941, seven years before the Jewish State even existed. — <font color="Red">Jeh2ow  <font color="Blue">Damn son!  16:47, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe Donald Trump was born in Russia. I mean - we have never seen his birth certificate, have we?  What is he trying to hide?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:43, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * If he's not hiding anything, why not reveal his birth certificate? It's an honest question, and many, many people would like to know. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  20:05, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * What if Trump has no birth certificate? What if his parents burned it because it showed that he was born on April 20th, 1889? — <font color="Red">Jeh2ow <font color="Blue">Damn son!  20:08, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

The multiverse has got to be the most confusing thing I know of (second to the mind of a politician)
Reading about it, the mathematics behind it, the skepticism, support for it and philosophy surrounding it all is extremely confusing. I am not very good at math, I barely passed astronomy and I failed physics yet I am trying to wrap my mind around it. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:11, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is based on a few key observations, and it is useful to contrast it against the Copenhagen interpretation. The first thing to understand about quantum mechanics is that as far as anyone can tell, it is not deterministic and does not follow strict cause and effect. Some particles will do random actions with varying probabilities, and two interpretations of this have arisen.  Copenhagen says that all possibilities occur at once until observed, and the final state as seen from an observation is random.  The many worlds interpretation says that all of the possibilities occured in separate, newly born universes, and which universe you find yourself in is random.  Another key observation is the double slit experiment, which shows that a single photon, when given a simple binary choice, picks both and interferes with itself in the process.  Copenhagen says that both were literally existing at the same time in superposition, but that when the photon was observed the superposition collapsed and left the final observed result.  Many worlds theory says that nearby universes can interfere with each other, and since a particle in the double slit experiment would create two "adjacent" universes, they can mildly interfere with each other to cause the observed effect.  The big difference between the two is that once a superposition collapses in the Copenhagen interpretation, then the quantum weirdness of that one event is essentially over.  Many worlds says that for every quantum choice, a new universe splits off and continues on it's own timeline forever; ergo the effect is permanent.  (Also I'm not trained in any quantum physics, so I could just have a giant misunderstanding of this, so if anyone finds fault please do share.)  MirrorIrorriM (talk) 06:49, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I shouldn't worry too much. it gets rebooted once in a while stop things getting too complicated. you just have to deal with a few versions of superman running around along side each other for a short time afterward. tis the circle of life AMassiveGay (talk) 13:28, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Also the occassonal "evil you" hanging around for a while. Look for the you with the pointy beard, it's usually him.  Unless you're physically female, then the you with the beard is nearly ALWAYS her. Kencolt (talk) 14:28, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * until I can put together a gangbang involving a dozen versions of me, multiverses can do one AMassiveGay (talk) 13:30, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Is there a term for 'relations between different multiverse versions of yourself'?
 * The conspiracy theories are actually true in other parts of the multiverse - and some of our realities are conspiracy theories elsewhere. Anna Livia (talk) 18:00, 30 December 2019 (UTC)


 * There are at least four different types of parallel universe that have a grounding in theoretical physics. The most natural one, I think, is called level 1, an infinite ergotic universe containing Hubble volumes realizing all initial conditions: where the Hubble volume, or visible universe, reoccurs periodically under which hypothesis there is an exact copy of you about 1010 29 meters from where you are situated right now. There is a very readable article here. You might enjoy it.Ariel31459 (talk) 19:20, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Not exactly. The other me is attractive, successful, and happy.  Trust me. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 01:43, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Dude, if you want to team up, grow goatees, skip over to another universe and get that guy, I'm in. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:03, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * across billions of worlds, with billions of differing choices, billions of permutations, infinite worlds of infinite variety, there will be no version of myself able to a grow an effective beard of any kind. my patchy facial hair is THE universal constant, the significance of which is lost on me, but does make me a kind of god, and is on my CV in the education section, just after my book keeping c4ertificate (level 3) AMassiveGay (talk) 15:12, 31 December 2019 (UTC).

Is it uncool to apologize in the US?
I always wondered about the "Canada joke" like they are overly polite, apologize too quickly and so on. What makes this a thing in the US? Is being polite supposed to be wrong, or going against human nature? Dogeatsdog (talk) 20:56, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Na. Just be overtly polite to make some Americans look at you weird. — <font color="Red">Jeh2ow <font color="Blue">Damn son!  21:34, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * As an American, that is largely true. Though it is fine to apologize though doing so immediately does not always work, give a person a little space so they can cool down. Being extremely polite gets you strange looks or remakes. --Manic Depressive (talk) 02:10, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Politeness takes a different tone a lot of places. I'm born/bred American Midwest, and politeness means saying "thanks" a lot more than it means saying sorry.  I don't know if it works the same way or not.  Saying sorry by default is still big. Like if people are standing between you and the bar, you say "sorry, can I sneak past you here" as if it's your fault and then some combination of "sorry" "thank you" "no worries" and "no, you guys are good" occurs.  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:22, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Being from the part of New England that's equal parts New England and New York City, the best way to be polite is get the hell out of the way and move you along. It's a courtesy to chew up as little of your time as possible, but most people outside of our area think we're the coldest people on earth; our famously laconic humor sure doesn't help that, to be sure. And, of course, in a way that certainly means well anyone in Maine will happily remind you that ya can't get theyah from heyah. The Blade of the Northern Lights (<font face="MS Mincho" color="black">話して下さい ) 07:10, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * There are some parts of the US, like (some place you've never been and no place you want to go to), where people seem exceptionally polite but will then quickly stab you in the back when you're not looking. Other parts like New York City use 'fuck you' in lieu of hello, but are otherwise nice enough for the most part. Bongolian (talk) 08:21, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Not really on the apologies track and I've only been to the states once. Colorado, thirty years ago. But when I said "Thank you very much" (which is common in British English) I got some strange looks. One shopkeeper replied "You are welcome very much". Though she smiled to show she was not trying to be nasty. I guess "thank you very much" is not common in the US?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:40, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * this was brought to mind AMassiveGay (talk) 01:18, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * please and thank yous are not the bench mark of politeness nor are apologies solely an indication of contrition or culpability. with the example of 'thank you very much' - its my go to pleasantry in a shop or such like because I feel its a more personal and sincere expression of thanks. its only four words, with corresponding eye contact, just feels like i'm acknowledging the humanity of the sales person in a way a 'cheers mate' as I half way through the door doesnt. is just as acceptable a response in its informality, the sales person just wants you to fuck off and not look longingly into your eyes as I make them do. on no account must one attempt to engage in conversation with any more depth than a 'nice weather we are having'. and never ever if there is a queue. those people need to fuck right off and learn some boundaries. thanks varies in with familiarity with those being thanked, for what, and frequency. im handed a leaflet and im-ever-so-grateful-for-this-tat-im-going-bin-I-respect-you-and-value-your-contribution-to-society. the love of my life who the sun shines out every orifice will barely get a nod, I SAID THANK YOU if they are particularly demanding. same with apologies - more effusive and numerous for relative strangers. such behaviour with a old friends and lovers implies distance or uncertainty of your position.
 * these things are regional. I have heard that germans rarely give thanks for say a cup of tea or make apologies of the kind the british make as a matter of course. it looks rude to british because that's not how thing are done here. it look glaringly stand offish. but they say the please and thank yous and sorrys for existing are insincere and just as rude as a result. does german society look fundamentally different to british society as result of this? we rarely even consider what rules we follow they are just engrained to what you picked up over time, belying all kinds of things like - class, age, nationality or region you from. it can colour your perception of whole groups of people over something inconsequential. some people are polite to shop staff, and others are just cunts. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:56, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I lived in Canada some years and it is no exaggeration to say sorry to someone who actually bumped into you. It's best to say sorry cause at 1AM in a central Canadian bar knocking into someone and no apologies (even with one) can start a helarious pub brawl. Canadians keep saying sorry u til the other person acknowledges it and if they don't respond with a "no problem" or equivalent many Canadians are disconcerted or disstressed by the lack of acknowledgement. Funny enough they are less likely than Americans to assume those who don't say sorry or don't say "no problem" are assholes but just having a very bad day or is a tourist. When I was in various parts of America I found wildly different responses to overly apologizing, from reciprocal overpoliteness (Vermont, Washington State) to some acknowledgement (Pennsylvania, California, Chicago, Mass.) to outright hostility (New York State, Michigan, Baltimore.) Politebess In terms of holding doors open and letting another car cut in or holding the elevator or giving up the last shopping cart to someone else...Canadians take the cake but I saw it often in parts of America almost as much. It's way less common in continental Europe to do these things. In terms of helping someone in the street who dropped something...I've noticed no difference between Canada and the US and you'll find much more help in Europe. Blind person needing help on the metro: I noticed Canadians wanting despartely to help but super worried they'd do the wrong thing. As for giving directions to someone holding a map...America totally wins. Starting up a conversation with someone sitting alone? America wins hands down. Keeping your religious views to yourself: America loses this one big time. Being careful not to unwittingly embarrass someone...Europeans win and Americans fuck this up frequently. Help and customer service? America is so high up in 1st place the 2nd place Canada needs binoculars to see up and do see crusty Europeans below. Disguising your bad opinion of your friends new ugly shoes or haircut... Americans. Willingness to share with anyone the greatest restaurant in the whole universe with the most Amazing Korean tacos ever made by humans: Americans. Being quiet on a bus: Canadians. Not having an argument in public: parts of Europe, Americans air their dirty laundry a lot. Not putting your feet on someone's coffee table: Europeans. Bringing beer when you visit friends: Canadians. Welcomibg people to join your party? Americans.  Shabi  DOO  04:10, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Donald Sterling
Raise your hand if you want me to create an article about the disgraced NBA owner and his racist comments! — <font color="Red">Jeh2ow <font color="Blue">Damn son!  22:22, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * There are bigger issues about sports and racism that could be covered (e.g., see the writings of or ) that could be written if anyone feels sufficiently knowledgeable to write about it. Bongolian (talk) 08:55, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Sterling isn't exactly an opinion leader. In 2014 he was diagnosed to suffer from Alzheimer's disease, and declared legally unfit to run the Sterling Family Trust. Ariel31459 (talk) 18:01, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I find Sterling to be one of the more sympathetic racists. He was subjected to a serious invasion of privacy. Even if you think that racists need to be hounded out of owning basketball teams, the manner in which his private remarks came to be public knowledge was extremely inappropriate, and basically enabled a vindictive smear campaign by his former mistress which we should not continue. Not sure how he is missional. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 19:35, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I think he was the guy who kept getting coverage in LA Times and readers were fed up about that drama. 20:02, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * If Sterling was suffering from Alzheimer's at the time that he made the comments, it's possible that this is something that he always felt, but was able to suppress outward expressions of it before dementia and not afterwards. There is some anecdotal information about this in other people with dementia. Bongolian (talk) 03:01, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Then again, if his filters were off as a result of illness, his culpability surely ought to be substantially diminished. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 15:15, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * on the other wiki (don't know this chap, so the other wiki is all I know of this) it has sterling getting sued quite a bit for housing discrimination. that suggests to me someone not adverse to acting on their prejudices. probably made it very easy, espec. with the early stages of alzheimers, to be goaded into saying objectionable as he claimed.
 * what more is there say about this? it doesn't look to me like it was the last act of a long career of racist shitbaggery within basketball. its one indiscretion, stamped on hard, coming at a time he was starting to lose his faculties.
 * there are better targets for racism in sports, individuals or institutions. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:35, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Iraqi livestream
If anyone here speaks Arabic you can watch the Iraqi situation live here: — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena  <font color="Magenta">Harass  15:34, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Taking a crack at writing a novel again
Yes it involves zombies. I am adding in themes like loss of innocence, freedom of religion, military reaction and cults. Not perfect but I am trying. Here is an excerpt of it:

High winds blasted the city of North Mercy, Florida as a powerful category 4 hurricane was closing in. The city of North Mercy was not only in the direct path of Hurricane Dominic but the city was in a major flood zone. All possible roads out of the city were jammed with thousands of people trying to evacuate. Hurricane Dominic had sustained wind speeds of 141 miles per hour and it was forecasted to get much stronger.

Meteorologists from both the National Weather Service and the National Hurricane Center predicted that the hurricane would hit in within 24 hours. Authorities sent a message through the Emergency Alert System urging people to now seek immediate shelter, evacuation was no longer an option.

Rommney Santaro was making some last minute preparations for the hurricane, he made sure that the boards on the windows of his home were secured; Rommney checked to make sure the sandbags were in place and finally he went over the amount of supplies he had. Being a military man, Rommney always made sure that he was prepared for disaster.

Feedback? Suggestions?

--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 21:26, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You should write a novel, and I would immediately buy it. However, I would like Rommney's name to have one "M", and make sure there isn't that many clichés. — <font color="Red">Jeh2ow <font color="Blue">Damn son!  21:33, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Hm, I'd rewrite the first paragraph to something more descriptive. "High winds blasted the city of North Mercy, Florida, as a powerful category 4 hurricane was closing in. North Mercy, seated on a major flood zone, stood directly in Hurricane Dominic's path. Thousands of evacuees jammed all possible roads exiting the city. Wind speeds were forecasted to get only much stronger."
 * The sentence beginning with "Rommney Santaro" has a spliced comma. Use a period. I also think that entire paragraph can use more descriptive verbs. The verbs can describe some sense of urgency? Rommney "scrambled", Rommney "shuffled". Maybe be more descriptive with "he made sure the boards on the windows were secured", like how did he make sure? Maybe use a "show not tell"; say "Rommney inspected the nails on the boards of the windows of his home"; "Rommney saw the sandbags orderly arranged and ready to brace the torrents". Overall, there's a lot of "telling" the story rather than showing what's going on. You should work on descriptive verbs and "show not tell". 21:39, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Once everything is complete I will send you a signed copy on the house. No joke. I will send one your way. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:02, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Ooooh, that’s even better. You should find a major publisher (Penguin Random House, Hatchette, HarperCollins, Simon & Shuster, and/or Macmillan) and send it my way. — <font color="Red">Jeh2ow <font color="Blue">Damn son!  02:45, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Check to make sure? Not necessary. Made sure communicates it more clearly with fewer words. You use "make sure" twice in the same paragraph. In the first paragraph you use city 4 times, name the hurricane twice and use another award sentence: it was forcasted to get...which could be replaced by a simple: they predicted or X was expected etc. Less is more. Less is more. Lessssssss is mooooooore. I think it's a fantastic idea to write a novel. Do it. Beg people for vicious feedback and deeply thank and take advantage of the few who do. And finish it! Finishing a novel is an incredible accomplishment...even if no one reads it you've done what thousands of people couldn't do: follow through. Shabi  DOO  04:21, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I will be adding in a few events that I wrote down on paper: North Korea invades South Korea, Conspiracy Theorists using the zombie apocalypse to gain wealth and power, a secondary human enemy that is trying to establish a theocracy, secondary global pandemic caused by pro-plague people, small scale nuclear conflict and Israeli-Palestine War. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 15:22, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * As an opening, this is a lot of exposition. So that's a lot of writing riding on the concept that will ultimately never see paper.  Exposition is really, really hard because of how important it is to the writing process.  There's a movie called Prospect that got an 88% on Rotten Tomatoes, but doesn't turn any heads on IMDB.  It's main problem is that it does not want to waste any time on exposition, which is actually very cool.  Instead it uses tropes to imply anything you need to know, which is actually really, really smart.  It subverts those tropes in a couple of ways, but it pulls so many stories into itself that it's fun, but not much else.  You don't need to know why space miners are mining gems out of space oysters. Except when it does use exposition on the main character for no reason, it becomes awful, and then doesn't do anything on a tertiary deus ex machina character at the end that really needs something to at least describe how it could happen.  The end is really Hollywood pointless versus the rest of the film.  I am with IMDB on it, I give it a high five out of 10, but probably for different reasons than other IMDB users.
 * Being said, it's clear that the writer or writers spent time working every character into a backstory scene that was never intended to be put in print, gave them ideals, attitude, and motivations that didn't come from an explanation of what was happening so much as "This is happening now, that is stressful because, character chooses action" Doing a character study is an old trick, one that isn't really used in action movies, and that's refreshing for film.  If you intend for this to be "characters vs crisis" you really could make some cool moves by leading with actions and holding backstory.  Exposition and dialogue work pretty well with plays and graphic novels, by the way, so don't pigeon-hole yourself.  Just, plays require directors and actors and graphic novels require directors and artists.  And all of it requires editors, who are always killing your soul unless you self-publish.
 * I saw The Martian for the first time recently, as comparison. I liked most of it, except that the exposition was coming from a cock-sure hero that obviously wasn't going to die, and the final scene of his salvation was stupid and bad.  But the exposition was done very well.  The planning back or Earth as a foil was frustrating, Donald Glover's comic relief didn't sit.  Love the guy, but he's used as comic relief to a fault here.  Interpersonal relationships were very good BECAUSE they didn't need exposition, they were just shown-not-told.  Why couldn't the plan that everybody put together as a whole have worked? Because the hero, who had already survived too many things, had to be the hero that solved the thing at the end too.  Stupid and bad, nothing would have been lost by having it work.   All the planning and the science was cool, but all the planning and the science was way cooler than the idea that every good idea had to explode and every bad idea had to Hollywood.  So I'm not a good gauge for ideas as an audience, I guess pick a target audience as well.  I'd suggest young adult if you're going zombie apocalypse.  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:24, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

What religion would zombies have? Anna Livia (talk) 15:59, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Not the zombies but rather a far-right Baptist religious cult intent on starting a theocracy. any tips on cutting down exposition but having a clear picture of what is happening? When I was in high school and when I would write, I never got constructive criticism. All I got was "This was good". Not trying to sound like an idiot. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:59, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Read through this website and this one. They're both resources that I like. Also, I do encourage you to start writing. Regardless of whether you actually get published, it's a way to improve your writing skills. Americans as a culture do not write well, and our education system sucks ass at teaching it. You'll distinguish yourself by being able to put together two thoughts on paper without sounding like an asshole. 18:09, 3 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Now this is another section I added, it is supposed to be the director of homeland security giving a short briefing to the press.

The White House Press Room was filled with news reporters, the director of Homeland Security was going to give a briefing on the events in Florida. Fear, curiosity and unease filled the press room. The director of Homeland Security stepped in front of the cameras ready to give a statement.

Allyson Benson, the director of Homeland had a stern and unhappy expression on her aged face. Taking a deep breath Allyson gave the cold hard facts on the current situation,

I have been authorized by the President to release the following information. A terrorist attack is taking place in Florida. At this point the people responsible have not been indentified. Now it is known that the terrorists are part of a religious cult. Investigators are looking into the event and there are a few suspects as of now.

Every reporter in the room was asking questions relentlessly. Allyson spoke up while ignoring the reporters,

There is also a secondary event taking place in the same area as the terrorist attack. It is confirmed that a disease of sorts is turning people homicidal. The cause is unknown. President Vickers has given the order for military deployment in the state of Florida.

Orion and Miami-Dade Counties have been quarantined effective immediately. That is all the available information for the general public. No questions.

Allyson calmly walked out of the room without another word. Twenty minutes after the breifing, conspiracy theories began to pop up on the internet. The chaos in Florida and the baseless conspiracies were the perfect ingredients for fear.'

I feel this section could use some change but I am not sure how. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 21:29, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * SCENE White Hours Press room, filled with reporters, podium and cameras, US backdrop

ALYSON BENSON REPORTERS

ALLYSON: I have been authorized by the President to release the following information. A terrorist attack is taking place in Florida. At this point the people responsible have not been indentified. Now it is known that the terrorists are part of a religious cult. Investigators are looking into the event and there are a few suspects as of now

REPORTERS noise

ALLYSON: Orion and Miami-Dade Counties have been quarantined effective immediately. That is all the available information for the general public. No questions.

ALLYSON exits calmly REPORTERS noise and flash cameras END SCENE

But is she actually calm or is this just a façade? Does she go into it solid and come out shaken, does she go in shaken and come out more secure? You've introduced Allyson Benson, you get to decide, but you're not giving her anything but calm no-reaction exposition lady. Could there be a question that punches out from the noise that intensifies the scene? Does Allyson know the answer, or does she not? Does she have thee information, or does she have a little information and her own ideas about it?

You're overstretching the scene instead of building on it. Lots of good info, but some of it definitely either needs to be storied beforehand or revealed later. Couch the secondary reveal, either in front of or behind this. Unless you're trying to do this in 80 pages. You should also be confident in your novel's president, maybe focus a scene on that. A warhawk, chickenhawk, peacemaker, dealmaker, dealbreaker, confident, overtired, if Allyson is speaking as proxy for the president, the president must exist in some form. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:08, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Predictions for 2020
2020 is very near. What do you think will happen during the year? Obviously, 2020 will be the year of Linux on the desktop, but what else? 21:44, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * In the gaming part of things, it'll be a bigger year than 2019, where E3 2019 was basically news for games to get delayed for 2020. I think we're going to get Animal Crossing: New Horizon this year, and I'd like to try that one. 22:28, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Brexit will finally be over, and a great new era of poverty can begin! AUSTERITY 2!!! Minish (talk) 00:25, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The fourth seal shall open, spilling death fourth into this pitiful world... Trump will win in 2020, thus proving that the United states wants to be invaded so we get something in the way of governance other than complete shit. 00:50, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I also expect Trump to win in 2020. 01:42, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Bernie has an advantage over Trump if he wins the nomination, as numerous polls and studies have attested to. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  05:58, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * For personal viewing, would you be so kind to link them here so I might reassure myself reflect upon them? <font face="Comic Sans MS"> Cumulus <font face="Comic Sans MS"> Precipitation  06:12, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * If Biden is the DNC's candidate then I think Trump will certainly win. If Bernie is the DNC's candidate then I think Bernie will certainly win. Right now they're the two candidates with the highest scores in the polls. I'm no political scientist, but I think it's like a 50/50 chance of either a Biden or Bernie candidacy, and therefore a 50/50 chance of a Bernie or Trump presidency, but I could very well be wrong. Everyone thought Kamala was gonna' be a major contender in the DNC primary but it didn't turn out that way. <font face="Comic Sans MS"> Cumulus <font face="Comic Sans MS"> Precipitation  06:07, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * This site is on the progressive bent and therefore pessimistic about the centrists, I see (right wingers have an advantage in their lock-step football-esque tribalism here :p ). Biden's actually got the best chance of overcoming the "electoral college rural bump", from everything I've seen, due to strengths in "purple" states. I'm not exactly a big fan of Biden personally (too old, really), but his poll metrics are noticeably better at this time. Having said that, a lot of progressive urban types are indeed lukewarm on Biden, so if I was him, and got nominated (as seems likely, but "you never know"), I'd probably chose a progressive VP (an example would be Biden / Warren since I know they've worked well together before) to try and consolidate both wings as best you can. Soundwave106 (talk) 20:11, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Interesting elections scheduled for 2020
01:58, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * US elections (duh)
 * Indian legislative elections (throughout the year)
 * Taiwan general election (11 January)
 * Israeli legislative election (2 March)
 * Polish presidential election (May)
 * New Caledonian independence referendum (6 September)
 * New Zealand general election, incl. euthanasia and cannabis referendums (21 November)
 * Trump wins, ?, ?, right-wing wins, PiS wins, ?, euthanasia voted legal. 02:18, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Bernie wins, BJP wins, DPP wins, B&W w/ coalition wins, PiS wins, Independence, euthanasia and weed legal. Those are my personal predictions. — <font color="Red">Jeh2ow <font color="Blue">Damn son!  02:39, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Also Cenk Uygur (The Young Turks, ex-Justice Democrats) and George Papadopoulos (the newly-minted felon of Mueller investigation fame) are running for Congress in a special election: March 3 primary, May 12, 2020 general. It's a crowded field of 15 in the primary with the top 2 vote-getters facing off in the general. Bongolian (talk) 02:42, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think Uygur is going to get through the primary. He might have name recognition, but his past comments about bestiality, women, and the Armenian genocide are gonna sink him. His comments supporting kiddy diddling are really awful but may not end up mattering as much, unfortunately. 02:46, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

How come nobody has predicted the end of the world on 02/02/2020?

And - two predictions for the end of January and the end of February. Anna Livia (talk) 18:59, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

The first article
What do you think would be perfect for being the very first article of the 2020s? — <font color="Red">Jeh2ow <font color="Blue">Damn son!  18:42, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * one that would make an acceptable article regardless of the date AMassiveGay (talk) 18:48, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * An article that summarizes all of the major news stories of 2010 through 2019? MirrorIrorriM (talk) 19:48, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Seconding this notion, a summary of the last decade should definitely be made. Given the amount of information that might need to be compiled, I don't think that it's going to be the first article of the 2020s, but this is a great idea that I'd love to see here. Representative Slip (talk) 21:34, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Only problem is, the guard has changed so much in 10 years. Unless articles is meant to mean WiG[] posts.  QAnon contributions are good, but so are flat earth, do a new article for 2020, I don't know.  It's ambitious, and I'm with AMassiveGay on this one.  Colonic cracks me up, but people aren't doing that as much as they were when I found the site.  Urine therapy is another term I look up when I'm feeling really down.  Fad diet could use a sprucing up.  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:53, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * "New Year" is arbitrary, so doing something because it's the new year is at least a bit irrational. People are still doing colonics — there are at least two "high" colonic parlors within walking distance my abode. Perhaps fortunately, people are not doing colonics on RationalWiki so much. Bongolian (talk) 04:58, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Archiving in "WIGO - Elections"
Since we've just entered January 2020, I wanted to bring up that there's currently no setting for auto-archiving on the What is going on with the Elections?, so currently it hasn't been archived since January 2019. Given that we're going into the 2020 US presidential election, I wanted to know if might want to archive it again, before that really ramps up with primaries and the general election.--NavigatorBR(Talk) - 21:28, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's probably a good idea. 22:50, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Done :) Cosmikdebris (talk) 01:32, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! 16:36, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Contrapoints released a new video
I think it was good. It took context of existence into account, over context of internet personality. As a cishet garbage normie, I have to wonder, how much has internet culture changed the dialogue? I mean, it's easy to make fun of Jayden Smith for having not very deep thoughts, but I kinda didn't either when I was 14, and I didn't even have the option to share those thoughts to the world and the world definitely didn't check in with me. I had a viral Xanga post that got over 100 comments, which is better pirates or ninjas, but that was it, that's as deep and as popular as I had to get. I don't actually ascribe to the idea of stan, I think that's a shallow way of appreciating ideas over people. And Natalie has done a whole piece, now, about exactly that, via a lens that I'm comfortably outside of and she's entirely affected by. So a lot of her points, even if affirmation of people discrediting her, did not hit for me. I just like Contrapoints videos, I'm not looking for affirmation or refutation, I just like them, and I listen to her, and sometimes she has relevant points to my worldview, and when she does that's really cool. There was a little controversy in the saloon before, I said something along the lines of "she didn't do it because she didn't know what she was doing" and I guess I was wrong. She had Buck Angel speak 20 seconds as John Watters because she asked him to and he did it, so she included it. I was wrong, I misread the whole situation, I thought it must have been some point on the distance that Opulence creates. Turns out, no, she was just excited she asked a guy to read a line and he did. Probably being scrutinized harder than what was actually there. I was pulling a Jayden Smith, assuming it was deeper than that. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:13, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I generally agree with her thoughts on the matter of Cancel Culture, i.e. the lack of forgiveness no matter how sincere the apology, the lack of good intentions for cancelling someone in the first place, and her likening it to the French Reign of Terror but with reputations. Her ideas are good, but her delivery is obnoxious, self-serving, and pretentious. It's hard not to tune-out while I'm listening to her as I do other things. I end up having to rewind huge sections of video because I noticed I stopped listening to her. I wish she would just get to the point, but those are just my tastes, and I understand I'm probably a small minority of her audience. <font face="Comic Sans MS"> Cumulus <font face="Comic Sans MS"> Precipitation  05:39, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Are There Any Rules, Official Or Unofficial, For Fun Articles?
Title says all. <font face="Comic Sans MS"> Cumulus <font face="Comic Sans MS"> Precipitation  05:34, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Must be fun. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:35, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Being somewhat missional helps. Also nothing illegalish (e.g., libel or advocating violence). Bongolian (talk) 05:39, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry to split hairs, but it must be known, missional by how much? <font face="Comic Sans MS"> Cumulus <font face="Comic Sans MS"> Precipitation  05:43, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It's undefined. If it's less fun, it should be more missional, and vice versa. Bongolian (talk) 08:58, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * But, what is fun...? ;) <font face="Comic Sans MS"> Cumulus <font face="Comic Sans MS"> Precipitation  05:41, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Missional? They don't have to be, some of my favourite fun articles aren't missional at all. Just try to make it funny. And no Comic sans! Avida Dollarsher again 19:27, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Several I made were far from missional, i.e Fun:Holy Goat Scriptures --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 22:26, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * See What is a RationalWiki article? "Other namespaces may have different standards or no standards at all"  The "No standards at all" is about funspace.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 09:46, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Although we have had funspace purges a couple of times. What you see is what survived. Be funnier than that and you're fine. Avida Dollarsher again 20:23, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Suleimani
The Persian general Trump just killed was also Iran's #2, and first in line to succeed Khameini as Supreme Leader. Sweet dreams! — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  08:04, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That last point is patently false. Ayatollahs have to be religious officials; Soleimani was a military leader. We're still in for Interesting Times, of course. 71.188.73.238 (talk) 11:54, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * This means war is a viable possibility now, and Iran isn't a pushover like Iraq was, there's also a definite possibility for WWIII now, since Iran is allied with Russia and China. Things are gonna get bad, and no one knows how this is gonna play out, but whatever happens I don't see cool heads prevailing. This was an act of war on the part of the Americans, and Iran's already vowing revenge. This general, Suleimani, was the Patton of the Middle East, that's not an understatement, this is big. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  13:48, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you have any idea just how stupid this decision was?!?!?!? SERIOUSLY!!! When I heard this I started freaking out, and I'm still fucking terrified. is correct, this effectively a declaration of war. This isn't something to be proud of at all.  14:11, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * it is unlikely to mean invasions of iran, but who the fuck knows with these fuck nuts. 'war' will most likely be the proxy variety, iran has been quite adept at that kind of thing (this was a strength of suleimani, apparently), having a presence throughout Iraq and Syria, an escalation but more of the same effectively. does the us have any allies on the ground anymore?, is Iraq and Syria where it will play out? are bridges still burned with the kurds, or will they be suddenly trumps new besties? I cant imagine the Iraqi government is going to be too happy.
 * whats even gained from this? why now? 'saving American lives' seem dubious as there will be repercussions. simply a distraction from impeachment? a reelection gambit?
 * withdrawing from the nuclear agreement, reinstating sanctions, continually threatening iran with 'obliteration' - its all been trump talking tough by playing with the lives of others. what ever happens will be his fault, and it all could have been and should have been avoided so easily. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:49, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * All of those questions you just asked are questions that Trump did not consider. Seat of the pants foreign policy is best foreign policy, after all. 16:35, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * My best conclusion is that, as with George W. Bush, Donald Trump is just a useful idiot to the American neo-con war-drummers still in the military high ranks. More so apparently (Dubya and Obama reportedly rejected assassinating Suleimani during their presidential terms.) I've never ever known this side to *ever* have sane policy in the Middle East in my life experience (if they were sane, for instance, we would have told our best buds Saudi Arabia to fuck off with that state sponsored Wahhabism bullshit, being that this was *far* more of a direct contribution to 9/11 terrorism than anything Iraq has done.) Soundwave106 (talk) 18:10, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * On this sort of topic, if troops are actually deployed to Iran a la Vietnam, what's the likelihood that some dipshit in the administration is going to push for another draft, just to truly bring us back to the Vietnam era? Also, I recently thought of a reason for this that I don't think Trump actually thought about, but could be understandable.  Is there a possibility that starting this war is a reaction to the signs of an upcoming recession?  Just to ensure that there isn't an actual recession that Keynesians might not immediately swoop in to fix, the higher-ups of the administration decide start a war with Iran that will bolster the economy and the military-industrial complex.  The fact that could distract from impeachment/might be helpful to any re-election effort is just a plus. Representative Slip (Submit a slip) 18:15, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * People are freaking out over WWIII happening due to this, I'd say their fears aren't unwarranted. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  18:19, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Their fears are unwarranted. Nobody wants to get involved outside of Iranian and American hawks. Iran is likely to do nothing that would promote Trump's popularity in the US. They don't have that long to wait. A likely response might be attacks on Trump properties outside of the US. That would fix his wagon.Ariel31459 (talk) 18:41, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think WWIII is likely. I think Russia and China would let Iran fall before getting into a direct confrontation with the US.  I think the more likely outcome is a massive increase in state sponsored terror attacks both in quantity and severity.  MirrorIrorriM (talk) 19:17, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I will say that America and Iran have always had some sort of tension. One would be recognizing Israel as country which they obviously did not like. There is also Saudi Arabia not liking Iran and wanting the US going against them, same with Israel. I would not place sole blame on the US in terms of aggression against Iran. I do wish that Trump had congressional approval. If I am wrong someone please correct me, I don't intend on starting an actual argument. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 19:39, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Mirror and Ariel on WWIII being unlikely via Iran and Trump yet, especially given the global economic impacts and potential for MAD involved (If WWIII breaks out within the next few years, my bet is more on South China or further Russian annexation of Eastern Europe -- something directly involving Chinese or Russian borders/sovereignty). Another open-ended "forever" war is definitely what I'm concerned about. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 20:05, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe (and hope) WWIII will be unlikely and think terrorist attacks will be on the rise, especially against US properties as embassies, etc. I see also likely Iran attacking Iraq and things certainly becoming really hot in the latter. Panzerfaust (talk) 22:56, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see Iran declaring war on the US. You'll see some "covert" attempts at terrorism, but a nation like Iran doesn't declare war on a nation like the US, that's just stupid.  "Shut up, Brx." 22:58, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that there will be no open war declared by Iran. But expect a great escalation of violence in Iraq and possibly Yemen. 23:37, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Except that Iran's primary means of conducting covert warfare was through Soleimani. What I expect to happen is that all the oil tankers in the gulf will discover "pirates", and Dubai is about to become extremely dangerous for all the dumbass celebrities who bought property there. CoryUsar (talk) 08:08, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Tankers having to be escorted by US warships?. Sounds possible. Panzerfaust (talk) 08:58, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The next war will be blood for hotel rooms . Bongolian (talk) 08:54, 4 January 2020 (UTC) Note: the hotel turned out to be a mirage. Bongolian (talk) 08:59, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

now that the Iraq government has voted to oust all foreign troops, it looks like trump has handed Iraq to iran. well done trump, you fucking imbecile AMassiveGay (talk) 13:43, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Almost like making Martyrs is a bad idea, huh. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 16:32, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem with this line of thinking is that it (eventually) begets the line of thinking that led to murdering a general for being involved in peace talks that dare to end-run around the US. "Either we control this country or our rival controls it" is shit.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:38, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikidata property
FYI https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P7775

Oh the irony
Texas oil refinery threatened by rising sea levels wants the government to help save it. Avida Dollarsher again 19:22, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I know we should be protecting some of the environmentally sensitive areas, but it's pretty sad that the conservatives and industry that keep denying climate change and stalling action on it are the first in line to get aid related to climate change disaster. Even Ted Cruz was onboard with this spending. 19:31, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * While I do not like the economic and environmental damage it would cause I do laugh at the irony. What goes around comes around. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 19:42, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Climate change (which is to say eustatic sea level rise) is pretty much a non-issue here, despite the headline. The sea level just isn't rising fast enough to matter for this consideration. Nearly all the apparent sea level rise on the Texas coast is from land subsidence, mostly due to extraction of things like oil and groundwater. So, while it's still a self-inflicted situation, it is of a rather different sort. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 21:33, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that it is that a lot of the concern that is driving this sea wall is less sea level rise and more hurricane storm surge. In which case the "climate change angle" comes from 'canes being made bigger and meaner by the phenomenon (something we are arguably seeing even now). The self-inflicted land erosion, of course (similar to Louisiana's swampland disappearance) certainly doesn't help. Soundwave106 (talk) 23:07, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Land subsidence is not erosion (though erosion is happening too). It involves material sinking to a lower elevation, not being removed and deposited elsewhere. And at ten feet or more in places (like Houston), that's the pressing issue. Of course the actual concern is dealing with hurricanes. But it's because the sea walls have dropped by ten feet, and there's a lot more coastal development than there used to be, not because storm surges have gotten ten feet taller. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 01:37, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

And now, we wait for an oil mine to implode because it's too hot outside. — <font color="Red">Jeh2ow <font color="Blue">Damn son!  15:32, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

If only the oil industry hadn't suppressed the seawater-powered car engine, they could have burned up all that pesky brine. --Annanoon (talk) 17:50, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Steven Simon's NYT article on Soleimani death
Hi all. Several conspiracy theories are appearing on the Internet about a NYT opinion piece written by Quincy Institute analyst Steven Simon, which apparently predicted Soleimani's death. My guess is that Steven Simon retroactively edited his article inserting the part about Soleimani's death as a kind of dark humor, or that this is somehow an amazing coincidence. Maybe you can get more information for a plausible explanation.

The NYT article is dated January 2 and says: "What if the former commander of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, Qassem Soleimani, visits Baghdad for a meeting and you know the address? The temptations to use hypersonic missiles will be many." https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/02/opinion/hypersonic-missiles.html

Soleimani was killed on January 3 by a missile attack (were the missiles hypersonic?) near Baghdad.--Bubble (talk) 16:31, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * This is explainable. Baghdad's time is 8 hours ahead of Eastern Standard Time. When Simon wrote the article, it was the 3rd in Iraq, and Soleimani was already dead. Simon never predicted anything, as he wrote the article after Soleimani died. — <font color="Red">Jeh2ow  <font color="Blue">Damn son!  16:36, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to get the precise time of the events. The NYT's article was snapshot on archive.is on January 2, 21:15 UTC http://archive.is/mW08f This means that Steven Simon wrote the article before January 2, 21:15 UTC. Wikipedia says that "Soleimani was killed on 3 January 2020 around 1 am local time (22:00 UTC on 2 January)" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qasem_Soleimani#Death
 * So it seems that Soleimani was killed after Steven Simon wrote his article. Although the two times are really close and because of the uncertainty of Soleimani time of death it can be the other way around. The best would be getting the exact dates when the NYT article was published and Soleimani death was annunced, but I don't know how to do do that.--Bubble (talk) 17:05, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

My new draft
I just started the draft on James A. Donald. Right now, it looks like shit, so I need a lot of help citing and writing (Hey, that rhymes!). EDIT: I forgot to mention this. His website is (JAD, http://blog.jim.com/ ). — <font color="Red">Jeh2ow <font color="Blue">Damn son!  17:13, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Elizabeth Warren
For a while, it was thought that Warren had beaten Sanders at his own game, and become the chief progressive candidate of 2020. She has largely fizzled out now, and her story is mostly a cautionary tale about listening to people in the media who think they can predict the results of a primary half a year in advance(when Warren was at her best), but I have heard her described as everything from, "Sanders, but better in every conceivable way," to "establishment Trojan horse that cost Sanders the nomination." Since this site is very Sanders friendly, and Sanders was arguably the candidate Warren affected the most, I was just curious what you guys thought of her.-Flandres (talk) 18:49, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Warren pretty much ruined her chances by saying she will vote for USMCA. — <font color="Red">Jeh2ow <font color="Blue">Damn son!  18:52, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It's true that there's (still) puffery on the Sanders page, and there are definitely Sanders supporters here. I'm not one of them, and I think there are others here who don't like him much. Bongolian (talk) 19:27, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry to generalize, and thank you for pointing that out. I should rephrase to say that a large amount of vocal users here support Sanders and our own poll at the top of this page shows quite a large Pro-Sanders presence on this site. Of course, you can still say whether or not you like warren regardless of your opinions on Sanders, I just felt like Sanders supporters would have the most passionate opinions on her because she is closer to them ideologically than say, Deval Patrick(which opens up the whole spoiler candidate problem), whilst more moderate Democrats would see them both as weak candidates.-Flandres (talk) 19:36, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Some of us are uninvolved. Anna Livia (talk) 23:53, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, not everyone who votes in elections votes in pointless polls. At the moment, I have no favorite among Democrats still in the race at this point. I see both Sanders and Warren as weak opponents because they were easily played by Trump starting in 2016. Bernie has a rather poor record legislatively, and I also actually find his speech patterns irritating. Bongolian (talk) 02:14, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * She does seem to have fundraising issues; most of the enthusiasm and small donor money is still with Sanders. I am not gravely worried at this time since most of the Democratic candidates are borderline acceptable to me, especially compared to Trump.  The only Democrats I'd have qualms about voting for are Marianne Williamson (yeah, right), Cory Booker (is he still in? No way I'd vote for a goddamn vegan), and Michael Bloomberg (the Tipper Gore of public-healthism).  Tulsi Gabbard is the cutest. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 04:58, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Sanders sucks tremendously, but I doubt Warren could make a comeback at this point. It's obvious anyway that Biden's going to be on the Democratic ticket, demonstrating that the DNC has learned nothing from 2016. 19:48, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Is there a candidate for the US presidency (including primary candidates) who doesn't suck for the majority of Americans? Why are Americans so hateful of perfectly reasonable candidates? I don't get the exceedingly high level of vitriol against just about every candidate. Shabi  DOO  20:14, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I would say this has more to do with Democrats than Americans-the democrats have a long history of producing underwhelming candidates for the presidency who most people find distasteful, and whenever they win it is because they are not AS distasteful as the republican candidate. "Exceedingly high levels of vitriol" is more or less standard. Also remember the Democratic party is a party of many factions who would not work together without the Republicans as a common enemy, so whenever you nominate a candidate from one faction all of the people from the other factions will get angry.-Flandres (talk) 20:32, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That "not as bad as the republicans" thing is because new-deal style democrats who actually offer positive material change, like sanders and only sanders in this election, have been displaced by iron law of institution type conservatives. The problem with the democratic party is that they are conservative, whereas republicans are mostly no-really-it's-an-accurate-description fascists.   ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:26, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * This here is a fantastic example of the problem with the Democratic Party, amusingly enough. 19:47, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

American general
While I won't cry for a second over a dead Iranian general (the repercussions of this is another story but let's go on). The U.S. government stands by its actions. When I think of the equally vilanous trouble making the U.S. has made in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Honduras, Nicaragua etc I ask myself...why does the world put up with American generals? The rest of the world should get together and every time an American general travels anywhere abroad...should collectively bomb him or her. While, on the one hand I never personally advocate bombing people...if the U.S. isn't going to stop and feels justified in doing so, to stop Iranian trouble making for example...then maybe the rest of the world ought to do the same. Of course the repercussions are there...but that's also another conversation. Shabi DOO  09:21, 5 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Probably because blowing up a three-starred empty suit full of hot air and fecal matter is more of a PR stunt that most countries aside from the U.S. wouldn't either; be able to make the most of, or make things worse. 2402:4000:2381:8E49:78FC:6A5E:4AA3:4F98 (talk) 10:02, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That's true. You got me there. But at least scientists would know what happens when you blow up hot air and fecal matter...for once and for all. Shabi  DOO  12:23, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * There's a bad global warming joke in there somewhere but I'm too tired to draw it out. 2402:4000:2381:8E49:78FC:6A5E:4AA3:4F98 (talk) 12:39, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Arguably you might as well do the same with military leaders worldwide, nobody has clean hands in politics. Now I do agree that the assassination was poorly thought of and rushed. That I do not approve of. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 14:13, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps rationalzombie, worldwide is going a little over the top? I'm not sure how much trouble making the Generals of Luxembourg get up to. Nor the general of Barbados nor the general of Fiji. Certainly...they may have been doing some no-goodery here and there, but I'm fairly sure their international mayhem creation is limited enough that planning and executing a strategic surgical strike while they happen to be abroad isn't really worth the time nor cost nor bother. It's dreadfully tedious planning it all and even more burdensome if something goes wrong. Shabi  DOO  15:39, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * This was a bad decision to make regardless, and as judging by the replacement for Soleimani, ie his protege who may as well be a carbon copy of him, it did shit to affect Iran's foreign policy and strategy outside of making them pissed off. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  17:14, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The reason why the world doesnt just unite and kill US generals is partly because the US has actual allies, not just enemies on the world stage. Further, not everyone wants more bloodshed or thinks killing people for their mere presence would solve or improve anything.  Further still, not all generals have been controversial and caused problems abroad due to bad decisions or callous lack of a concern for life.  I think the better question would be why American generals who are known to have contributed to atrocities are not tried in a court of law for their actions by Americans or anyone else.  The only time generals are tried for war crimes is when a country is conquered by another or a revolution occurs.  Besides that it rarely, if ever, happens.  MirrorIrorriM (talk) 20:39, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Considering that Israel and Saudi Arabia are happy for the most part (from what I understand but retaliation is a huge issue), they would refuse to unite with their enemies. Iran and Iraq hate Israel and Saudi Arabia, Russia and Japan do not like each other, India and Pakistan hate each other so you get the picture. Now there is the issue of people in individual countries supporting a full scale global war. Doubt very many people would support a war that would cost hundreds of millions of lives, destroy economies and the environmental damage. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:50, 5 January 2020 (UTC)