RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive298

IS Buddhism supposed to cause depression?
I generally don't see myself as being too unhappy. But when it comes to Buddhism it just seems like every time I go and read things related to it I walk away feeling depressed. I tried their meditation techniques but loving kindness doesn't work, and mindfulness just makes me feel depressed and disconnected from life around me. It seems like it has the opposite effect of what it intends to do. Even their doctrine of no self does it, that the self isn't separate and independent but changes and is relative to the surroundings. It's like there is nothing solid and unchanging that I can use to guide me according to that. Even asking me to let go of desires, but then what would I do? To which there answer is "where are you going"? Obviously anywhere, any time I toss my desires and achieve "equanimity" like they say I just remain paralyzed. I have to wonder how people who practice this actually function or if they just wave away the contradictions as "insight".Machina (talk) 02:03, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't have any polite answers. As far as I can tell that's religion 101, make up some impressive sounding stuff, run with it, make up more impressive sounding stuff that may or may not mesh with the last batch of stuff, hand-wave away any inconsistencies, claim you have the ultimate truth. Like I said, no polite answers. The more I learn about religion in general, the more the entire concept disgusts me. Sorry if I come as bitter, that's just how I am on this subject. 02:57, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Machina: If Buddhism is making you feel this way, I really advise you to just abandon it. Try secular techniques at mediation. I think religion in general just won't do you any good. 04:03, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * For your blasphemy against Buddhism, you will be reincarnated as a mushroom in a future life. — Ɖøn Ĵuan   Harass  23:12, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Query about a certain argument tactic just kidding it’s about SmashFAQs now
Oftentimes when I am in an argument with someone who is really rather unhinged or off the deepend (not conspiracy theory crazy but just really dumb) they resort to this sort of “guilt-tripping technique” where they go “omg I guess I’ll just go kill myself then!” or “wow, I guess you really just hate my guts, don’t you?” or just otherwise act really melodramatic to make it all about them or make the one arguing against them look like a big ol meanie-face :( I’m sure I’m not the only one who’s encountered this before and I’m almost certain there’s a specific term and page for it on the wiki. If there is, would someone be kind enough to link it for me? Wiseassmathematician (talk) 03:45, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It sounds like victimization or a victim complex. RationalWiki doesn't seem to have a page but there is an article on Wikipedia about  03:51, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a polite way of them saying you are too controlling. nobspiss in my ear 04:02, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Sounds like an Argumentum ad hominem mixed with appeal to disgust, Tone argument, Appeal to emotion, Appeal to shame, and of course Poisoning the well. Mostly it sounds like you've encountered a Concern troll, one obsessed with tone. 04:03, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd sum it up as guilt-tripping. I've had to deal with it too many times in my life. Anyone who uses that technique to debate, it's better to avoid such noxious toxicity passive-aggressive guilt-tripping always invites because it's not a good feeling to deal with. It's manipulation. 04:05, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, hey lefty! Funny you came here actually, the reason I bring this up was cause there was a user on GameFAQs doing the exact thing I was describing (threatening suicide when he was losing an argument) in the Super Smash Bros. board, and I know you occasionally post there as well. Small world! Wiseassmathematician (talk) 04:11, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * don't remind me of that board, what a cesspool to post in 04:13, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, hey. That made me laugh. It's so petty. Tons of children there, they'd do this crap, but I'm sure adults aren't shy of this either. What thread is it? 04:14, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * i sure hope to god that it isn't in the thread in the first goddamn page of the time of this written comment titled "Which character would you want to have intercourse with?" 04:15, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * shit dog, I think I’ve found | a thread that somehow manages to be even worse.Wiseassmathematician (talk) 04:31, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * could have told me it was a thread about wannabe porn without me having to click on it. could have spared me the extra questioning of myself, "why the hell do i even go back there anymore" 04:36, 18 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure whoever made that thread and whoever posted in that thread can't be older than 12. 04:16, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * the thread sounds like it's made by wannabe rapists. funny how they let that sort of thread stay up and put me on "warned" for merely quoting a terrible manager. 04:18, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Nah, it’s | this thread right here. Though it eventually got deleted (for obvious reason, his account got suspended also) he subsequently made a poll asking users if he should kill himself. Unsurprisingly, some people actually took him seriously.Wiseassmathematician (talk) 04:20, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * oh, it's SilentDarkway. the guy who keeps needing validation about his views surrounding people's opinions on super mario odyssey, super mario 64, or whatever, posting a billion topics in the switch boards about the same aforementioned question, attempting to friend me because of our similar attitudes towards game mods (and i had unfriended him because he was posting extremely obnoxious topics as aforementioned). this new threat of suicide is a new low for me, and i'm glad i disassociated with him. i despise people who threaten themselves with suicide when they're losing an argument or anything, as it's a form of emotionally abusive behavior to solicit a response that they want 04:25, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

All of which leads us to the natural truth. Having strong opinions about video games is wrong. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:15, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Is having video games about strong opinions right? Ɖøn Ĵuan (talk) 14:34, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

World's oldest spam
Getting the message, at last Wow, the world's oldest spam was sent by telegraph. Ɖøn Ĵuan (talk) 14:49, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Some of the oldest writing known to mankind is essentially a Yelp review. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:41, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Curiously that oldest known writing reveals that the dudes had advanced cross-border trade laws featuring consumer rights, and that they were well versed in negotiation tactics and shifty dealings. 5000 years later, nothing has changed. 20:11, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * As the old saying goes, "The more things change, the more things stay the same." Ɖøn Ĵuan (talk) 20:17, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Within a week of the first usage of 'chalk, charcoal and other markers' being developed in the ancient world the first 'unauthorised images on walls' were being created; and within a week of the first reasonably successful writing classes being completed there were graffiti of the 'X is a Y' and similar graffiti, and letters of complaint. Citations probably not needed. Anna Livia (talk) 13:08, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Mind-Body Medicine: Read about it and still don't get it
From what I can surmise, it sounds like some kind of counseling profession; not unlike Biblical Counseling creationists use. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 21:46, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Having looked at the claims and treatments of one "care" facility: psychiatry denialism based on vaguely eastern mysticism driving a dualistic worldview. I looked up a book about it, and found one of the most honest reviews I've ever seen: "I enjoyed this book because it reinforces my beliefs..."  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 23:55, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I wonder how much the knowledge of the placebo effect has been misinterpreted when it comes to this stuff. Like, the proprietors say "it's generally mind over matter anyway, so if I can help x percent of people get over ailments that could be solved by the placebo effect, I am a doctor."  And the people who are generally healthy but can't find a solution to a mild hypochondria about a pet issue find some comfort in garbage solutions, I mean, I have experience watching these people go on and on, reiki and paleo diets and enemas.  One guy I know said he felt like Spider-Man after an enema.  There are billboards for ED and low T clinics all over my town, it's a more competitive market than chiropractors right now.  Low Testosterone?  Is that really so common, am I just a normal T alpha hater?  Erectile Dysfunction I understand, as we men get older, it's harder to get our bodies to do certain things like they always used to do without planning around it, like jumping down 6 feet or lifting over 150 pounds without hurting ourselves.  The ability to look and plan how to use his body, added with the need to flex on the young, is what gives an old man his old man strength.  I'm not exactly anti boner pills, I'm sure some day I could sorely be in use of one, but these clinics aren't looking for just those clients, like Viagra commercials did.  They are taking in men who don't feel manly and who worry their boners aren't boney enough.  I think Low-T is the new pseudoscience scam  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:18, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Low T bullshit has been a body-builder forum thing for a while now. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 05:51, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Bao
Anyone remember that Pixar short before Incredibles 2? 68.0.189.224 (talk) 02:39, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, what about it? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 04:35, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I searched for "Bao racism" and found this article I didn't like. https://nextshark.com/pixars-short-film-bao-confusing-heck-white-people/ 68.0.189.224 (talk) 04:51, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It's funny that this is more of a topic than unsubtitled Spanish in Into the Spider-Verse. Like, people get that "Oh, ok, I don't know Spanish, that's just going to have to be ok for me with this scene."  But they see this and say "I don't know why I am looking at this..."  The times are changing, the general reaction is better than outrage at either.  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:26, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah it is kinda funny. To me though, as just another typical white dude, the short's message and themes were really understandable and not all that confusing regardless of culture, and it makes me wonder why certain people didn't get it because Pixar is typically known to make universally appealing movies. People got what WALL-E, a Chaplinesque film was about very easily but not this? -𝓪𝓵𝓮𝔁 here! 17:19, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with the article? And why were you searching "bao racism"?  Also baoze are delicious.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 05:31, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I hate the article because of the title and the images. I was also sad and angry when I first read it. I searched bao racism because I was watching to many political videos. 68.0.189.224 (talk) 06:00, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * At first I thought you were talking about the old Mongolian religion Bön, but then I realized that I misread, and you were talking about something completely different, in which case, care to explain just what the fuck you guys are talking about?
 * A baoze is a kind of chinese steamed bun. It's a super common real chinese food, and basically absent from chinese restaurants.  And they're very tasty.  Pixar did a short(as they do) before Incredibles 2, about a chinese american mother where she made a sentient steam bun that symbolized her relationship with her son.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:49, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation, I had no clue what the fuck a "baoze" was until you provided some badly needed background information. — Ɖøn Ĵuan   Annoy  16:23, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

are not absent from Chinese restaurants, you just need to go to one that specializes in dim sum. Bongolian (talk) 20:32, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I have been and dim sum traditionally refers to south-chinese snack foods, and most such restaurants will give you barbecue pork buns, but not the wide variety of ones I've been exposed to.   ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:35, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

US Pullout Method
So... The US is pulling out of Syria. I... am not sure how to respond. I think it's high time we just admitted that we failed in Syria, no need to kill a bunch more people for the sake of killing. Putin's got his naval base, Assad is still there proving to be the ad for Ass. ISIS is just chugging along in hiding, and nothing short of an actual invasion with some good ol' fashioned brutality is going to root them out, something only either the Kurds or Syria are willing to do, and it's clear the Kurds aren't able to thanks to geopolitics (screw you, Turkey). But everything I see, it's all "oh, Trump is giving in to Putin" and so forth. I'm not sure how to process that part. Is CNN actually advocating more war? I, just, I don't know any more. CoryUsar (talk) 21:53, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * To answer your question, yes, every "liberal media" bastion that should be like "great one less pointless war" is 100% in favor of more war. And they all have been for a while  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:56, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * We (and I'm deep Midwest US) can't say we spent these lives and this money for no reason, and we admit we did it for oil. So, mission accomplished, but that didn't work the last time so we're trying to slide it across without fanfare.  Fair enough, we're loading up in southeast Asia now, which I honestly agree with.  If we're going to put too much military in a spot, let's make sure North Korea doesn't make militaristic friends.  We've also lifted restrictions on oil drilling in Alaskan reserves.  I don't like it, but at least if we're going to destroy the earth we can have full ownership of it.  I'm not happy about the conservatism of these wars, but I've got a spine.  It will be easier to push green energy if the US is oil sufficient at the detriment to our own environment.  I can't afford an electric car, I live in an apartment, there are no charging stations.  And electricity is still coal.  This doesn't address the issue, but not spending money/lives on protecting energy we can get from other means is alright by me.  I know what we've done, and I'm not going to slight the progress.  Just, let's not go back to Iran.  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:42, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Electric cars powered by coal are actually breakeven with gasoline cars, in terms of the environment. There's always a loss of energy every time it's transformed, but coal plants typically convert 30% of the energy in coal into electricity.  Of this, a third will be lost to transmission, charging, dissipation, and then converted into mechanical energy, meaning that only 20% of the energy in coal makes it into your wheels.  Gasoline powered cars only convert 20% of the energy in the gasoline into mechanical energy, however, gasoline requires a lot more processing, so it's actually even lower.  What brings gasoline cars back into comparison is that electric cars are by far more energy intensive to manufacture, making them about even.  There are still a few advantages to electric, mainly that the pollution is produced at the plant and not at the tailpipe, making the cities cleaner.  However, new coal plants operate at 40% efficiency, and natural gas can get 50%, meaning even fossil fuels can still make the electric car by far and away the better option.  The problem remains making them affordable to the consumer, and until we figure out how to make batteries less than $100/KWh, the car will unfortunately be the plaything of the upper/uppermiddle classes rather than working class stiffs.CoryUsar (talk) 03:32, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The main thing with electric cars is, even if it was less efficient to use coal in an electric car than gas in a combustion engine, they're future-proof. an electic car doesn't care where the electricity comes from, just that it is in fact electricity and not squirrels. 24.120.253.250 (talk) 00:42, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

is it right to pull out now? regardless of whether or not you supported the idea of troops being sent in the first place, they where sent and will have had an effect. you can argue what that effect was (though helping end an actual genocide in iraq is surely a good thing) but pulling out now on what seems like a whim? what effect will that have? what kind of power vacuum will be left and who would fill it? its worth noting that pulling out of iraq 'early' in the first place allowed isis to gain the ground it did. is it really a spent force in iraq or syria? what of the other players? of the kurds, of the syrian government, of russia, of iran? And what of afghanistan? what effects will a pull out have on that blighted country? what of the countries that now have an isis presence? unless there are answers to these questions, talk of pull outs is short sighted. or we can wring our hands, 'not our problem'. seems like 'not our problem' was the prevailing thought until 9/11 and look where we are now AMassiveGay (talk) 13:25, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

why do people try to advertise here
it is literally a wiki that has a userbase that seeks to debunk bullshit and most of these people uhhhhhhhhhh timmy did it apparently 24.120.253.250 (talk) 00:55, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Same reason you get spam email/phone calls that you'd never reply to. They cost the sender next to nothing to send on an individual basis. They're probably doing the same shit to other Wikis that are less vigilant. Bongolian (talk) 03:51, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, specifically they detect mediawiki software by crawling the web, then, where they find it, they start spamming. With the assumption that wikis smaller than wikipedia don't have the time/energy to remove spam.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:34, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * To be fair, most of what mediawiki powers actually doesn't.--Spoony (talk) 13:55, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The bots will do it to any wiki, even your hobby wiki will be overun by spam if you don't use some kind of defense system. 23:32, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * well I'm meaning less bots and more people like that one user logicnsuch(reborn)/psychiclie. spam I get but trying to defend it for weeks makes no sense

110,000 people stranded at the airport
Gatwick is suffering a drone attack, some little shite with a few drones has basically kept it on lockdown for an entire day. Due to health and safety, the police can't use real guns to shoot them down. This has sparked some debate over something called a "drone gun", what exactly are these, and do they work? Because the authorities seem to not be using them. 12:24, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * A DroneGun uses radio waves to block drones from flying with just one pull of a trigger. I believe they work, but I'm not sure how they aren't used yet. -𝓪𝓵𝓮𝔁 here! 12:47, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I suspect said guns could interfere during take-offs and/or landings with the airliners' avionics, so they're not used more extensively or at least not as long as there're normal operations. 110,000 people really stranded?. Wow. Panzerfaust (talk) 14:23, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * drone guns can send drones spinning out of control - probably something to be avoided if the airspace is restricted if the first placed. there doesnt seem to be a great many options at present to deal with drones that both effective and not problematic in some way. @panzer - airports are busy places and gatwick is the 8th busiest in europe. its fortunate this didnt happen at heathrow - the busiest. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:55, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It depends on the drone in question. Modern, advanced drones usually have failsafe systems that will try to land the drone safely when communication with the operator is severed. Less sophisticated drones will probably just fall to the ground. The manufacturer of the DroneGun sells drone detection and identification devices along with the jamming gun, so supposedly you'd be able to tell how the drone will go down before "shooting" it. 174.200.44.158 (talk) 16:01, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * you are not going to know before hand how a drone is going to respond. theres potential there for less than desirable outcomes. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:06, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I can't find any technical documentation on it, specifically, but the DroneGun (brand name) advertises itself as jamming radio signals used by drones to force them to the ground. Radio jamming is typically done by flooding an area with garbage radio signals. The "gun" is advertised to cover the specific frequencies commonly used by drones, and appears to project radio noise in a directional fashion to disable communications between a drone and its operator. I can't say why it isn't in uee in the UK. But in the US, it's illegal under an FCC regulation that prohibits the use of any radio jamming device by civilians or police. 174.200.44.158 (talk) 15:49, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * A man and woman have been arrested: no info on how they were found or why they were doing it (if they were) (Guardian report) Scream!! (talk) 15:49, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * This isn't hard to prevent if you've seen a few episodes of Stop the Pigeon. 2A02:C7D:1635:5C00:9E2:3B47:D026:B241 (talk) 17:10, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You sure about that? I don't think they ever did catch that pigeon. Avida Dollarsher again 20:29, 22 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The two people the police arrested and blasted as criminals on the national news just before Christmas... were innocent locals who happened to have a drone picture on their facebook page. They have been released after their Christmastime jail stay without charge. 14:51, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Just use this. 16:15, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * thats what the dutch were doing. they stopped because of risk to the eagle. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:48, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 'There may have been no drone at all!" Scream!! (talk) 23:59, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * An airport closure displacing 140,000 people based on "drone hallucinations" would be up there with UFO sightings. 00:45, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Express "news" is the U.K.'s version of Fox news
Though I think Express is worse than Fox news. Every day I get articles from them on my main Google page. Each time they post click-bait bullshit or outright say the end of the world is coming. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:09, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Check Daily Mail Daily Express. 18:39, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You do know you can tell google you are not interested in news items from the daily express. It's a rag, a hate filled, jingoistic tabloid with fuck all redeeming features other that it's easy to improve it's content when using the paper to wipe shit off your shoe, preferably using Boris' weekly rant. Cardinal Chang (talk) 20:30, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It' used to be up until quite recently that one could report bullshit news to Google ("Report a problem with Google News": https://support.google.com/news/contact/report_news). But this page now just redirects to a Google News Help site that does not enable reporting. The same bullshit stories are still there in force (e.g. sketchy Fox News and Daily Mail stories in the science section, Coinbase and stock touting in the business section). The Science and Health sections have gotten noticeably awful in recent months. Bongolian (talk) 21:07, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * If you go to your Google privacy settings and redefine your profile, settings, and history, you can still change what you see. If you delete all your history and turn off all the tracking knobs it will effectively reset your feed, this is very useful for youtube for example.  23:30, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * why would you want to? isnt it useful to know what the fucknuts are saying? AMassiveGay (talk) 17:47, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * got a point there. Gotta have material to use for debunking. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 19:57, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

PewdiePie Hacks Wall Street Journal
A bunch of people saying he hacked them when there's no evidence for it. great journalism! 23.118.143.3 (talk) 16:58, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * no ones been saying that. great journalism indeed AMassiveGay (talk) 17:46, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It says PewDiePie fans hacked WSJ. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 18:47, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Easily explained by the fact pewpewpie is part of a hive mind, he is personally responsible. :D 20:17, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No no no. The original title was PewdiePie hacked it. Also there's no evidence it was his fans. But nice theory dude. Ir's real rational to believe what games journalism says without question. but the real problem are those guys who want escapism.23.118.143.3 (talk) 20:40, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh look, a GG concern troll... How cute. 20:45, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * FUCK That if you can focus on is that I mention GG is passing you got the attention span of a flea. Nice dodge. You're condescention isn't earned. We've demonstrated their lies again, and again. But no.. there's no problem in journalism it's the consumer's fault for noticing it.WHAT23.118.143.3 (talk) 23:13, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * holy shit thedarkmaster2 give it a fucking rest. why do you somehow think that a reactionary hit group like GG is somehow worth defending 24.120.253.250 (talk) 22:16, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I suppose you think that you're little comment is quite the clever zinger, it is not. The moment you uttered "Ir's real rational to believe what games journalism says without question. but the real problem are those guys who want escapism." you sealed your fate and dashed your credibility into the abyss. You and your "movement" have been obsolete and lackluster almost from the moment you uttered your first baseless charge, and since then you and yours have only faded from that original nothing, into less than nothing. TL;DR GG is a laughingstock, a joke Gamers tell each other reinforce actual apolitical culture, a parable of fools. Go back under your rock. 02:29, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

"Keep Christ in Christmas" Creepypasta and a funny YouTube comment
Last night I listened to a creepypasta called "Keep Christ in Christmas" which involves a demonic Christmas ornament.

Now, this guy commented

I am going to show this video to my Pastor and this video will get taken down.

Fundies love to make idle threats. Free speech is free speech. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 13:27, 24 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Lol. 13:34, 24 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The channel CreepsMcPasta who uploaded the video has over 1 million subscribers and has plenty of money. Why be scared of a Pastor of what is probably a tiny church. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 13:54, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * In this case, it was an idle idol threat. Bongolian (talk) 23:54, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Skynet is real!
Wikipedia has more:. Nerd (talk) 03:45, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * "I am a cybernetic organism, Cyberdyne Systems Model 101." — Ɖøn Ĵuan   Harass  08:20, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Wasn't some US ship named after the Star Trek Enterprise@
 * Don't worry - Boaty McBoatface will be to the rescue. Anna Livia (talk) 10:40, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * us xhips have been named enterprise since the 1700s AMassiveGay (talk) 10:47, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, indeed. And more will follow. Both the world's first nuclear-power aircraft carrier (CVN-65) and the next Gerald Ford-class supercarrier (CVN-80) have the name USS Enterprise. Enterprise is a really nice name, just like Iowa, Montana, Missouri and so on. Nerd (talk) 17:17, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jmqa99Ar1Hs — Ɖøn Ĵuan   Harass  11:32, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * This was a specific case - and there are Real World borrowing of names etc from fiction (Flores hobbits are slightly out of context here). Anna Livia (talk) 12:37, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * probably, but how would you differentiate between the usual enterpises and star trek enterprise? 'we name this ship enterprise - not that enterprise but the other enterpise' and wouldnt the star trek enterpise have been named after the other eterpises anyway? AMassiveGay (talk) 12:36, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The Star Trek Enterprise was named after the US Navy ship Enterprise, one of many which were in turn named after the British sailing vessel, HMS Enterprise, which they stole off the French anyway. This is alluded to in one of the Next Generation films where they are on a holodeck replica of the original Enterprise. 20:15, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Esperanto Articles
So I may or may not get to doing this, but i've been studying Esperanto for the past two weeks and was curious if I would be allowed to translate some current articles into Esperanto for practice. I don't want to do this because of some stupid ideological reason why Esperanto is perfect but simply because I feel like it.--Spoony (talk) 12:09, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure, why not? — Ɖøn Ĵuan   Harass  12:10, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Go ahead. There are a few Esperanto articles already, including the wonderfully named Esperanto (Esperanto). See Category:Esperanto. Avida Dollarsher again 15:06, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * All but two of the articles in Category:Esperanto were created by me. (I cannot claim credit for "Esperanto (Esperanto)".) I've translated one article a month since June. (I did my first Spanish translation here in December. I intend to translate a few more articles into Spanish and French in 2019.) Hopefully, I will have started my January project, translating our new Arthur Conan Doyle article into Esperanto, by this weekend. Spud (talk) 16:21, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

I've been procrastinating on finishing my David Icke EO article for months now. 'Legion what do you want from me  01:53, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Then sink your scales into it. — Ɖøn Ĵuan   Harass  18:42, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * More like 2 inch long teeth, unless those white pointy things in reptilian mouths really are scales. 😜 19:00, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Fangs! 21:37, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Trump spotted secretly flying over Europe
Apparently he is visiting the troops or something, but failed to tell the public first leading to perplextion. I think the US Government will stay shutdown for the foreseeable future, and Trump feels that a warzone is the safest place for him at this time. 20:47, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Saw a tweet that someone had seen AF1 flying over UK - didn't believe it at the time. Scream!! (talk) 21:23, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Here: Trump over England Scream!! (talk) 17:52, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Or was it a colourised UFO? Anna Livia (talk) 00:00, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Was Trump literally flying, a la Superman, or was he just in an airplane? — Ɖøn Ĵuan   Harass  13:26, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No, it's our God-Emperor, Donald J. Trump. And yes, he's faster than a bullet. Nerd (talk) 15:59, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * He can leap tall buildings (*cough*Trump Tower*cough*) in a single bound! He's faster than a speeding bullet! He's stronger than a locomotive! He's our God-Emperor, Donaldus Magnus! — Ɖøn Ĵuan   Harass  16:35, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Where are the trumpets (voluntary or last)? Anna Livia (talk) 17:09, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Liberals beware! Super Trump will smack you with his corn cob hair! His super power is screaming about his fucking stupid wall. He takes money from the poor and gives it to the rich. Super Trump's catchphrase is, Give me my wall and make Mexico pay (for it)!--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:19, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * We can make a movie out of this: "Twilight of the Super-President: Donald I". — Ɖøn Ĵuan   Harass  18:29, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

We can get James Cameron to direct it. It could make millions. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 19:36, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I was thinking Michael Bay, maybe we could hire Kubrick's ghost to direct it? — Ɖøn Ĵuan   Harass  19:53, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * How about the washed up Kirk Cameron do it? It could work. Maybe get Randy Newman to do the theme song? --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 22:28, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I propose we get Ted Nugent to do the musical track. Chickenhawks attract other chickenhawks, you know. — Ɖøn Ĵuan   Harass  22:42, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Ted Nugent would be perfect for doing the musical track. Trump is already stomach churning on his own. Ted Nugent would be the cherry on top of the diarrhea shake. We could make extra money by selling barf bags. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 22:51, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

DEATH TO ALL THAT IS HOLY!!!
WE WILL ROOT OUT AND SLAY THE HOLY, SLAY THE RIGHTEOUS, SLAY THE FAITHFUL! MAY THE MINIONS OF THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER FOREVER CRUSH THE HORDES OF CHRISTIAN WANNA-BELIEVERS! DEATH TO THE CHRIST! DEATH TO THE CHURCH! ALL WILL BOW BEFORE THE FSM! REPENT, CHRISTIANS! REPENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111!!!!!!! — Ɖøn Ĵuan   Harass  00:18, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Errr... I'm not Christian or Pastafarian...  We cool?  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:46, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You smoking crack dude? --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 16:04, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I prefer booze. — Ɖøn Ĵuan   Harass  20:45, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I have never had any luck smoking booze. It only makes the rolling papers soggy, and won't light unless Alton Brown is there.Kencolt (talk) 21:57, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize you can smoke booze. For some reason I`m seeing pigs flying right outside my window... — Ɖøn Ĵuan   Harass  20:33, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Ich glaube mein Schwein pfeift. nobspiss in my ear 07:44, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Vaccinations are bad!
Look at the evidence! We need to ban vaccinations! AntivaxMom (talk) 22:19, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * — Ɖøn Ĵuan   Harass  22:21, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I’ve had 5 kids and didn’t vaccinate any of them. The one that survived turned out fine! AntivaxMom (talk) 22:23, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Methinks that AntivaxMom may be pro vax afterall. Not a troll: "The one that survived ..." Scream!! (talk) 00:02, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Sounds like satire to me. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 14:16, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Think I'll remove the 'collapse'. Scream!! (talk) 19:40, 24 December 2018 (UTC)


 * But this presumes the other children died of preventable illnesses.
 * On a technicality - are most people (since 1975) vaccinated or inoculated? Anna Livia (talk) 13:31, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * When reverting a revert of mine, they said measles. Nerd (talk) 16:01, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The plan for me is if every other chump pays some scam doctor to vaccinate their kids, herd immunity and God's will ought to pan out for mine. I, on the other hand, am clearly taking no risks here, which implies massive gains.  Also, has anybody seen the latest powerball payout?  It's only a dollar to play, right?  I'd like to know whether to drive my drunk ass over to the gas station and pick up my ticket.  I mean, if it's less than a hundred million, what's the point?  But if it's 100 million, oooh baby, I'm playin to win! Gol Sarnitt (talk) 07:50, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Sudden Blue Light in Sky Over NYC
https://newyork.cbslocal.com/2018/12/27/laguardia-airport-transformer-fire/

Official word seems to be it was caused by a large fire at a power plant in Astoryytria. Lots off buzz on social mesia; brace for conspiracy theories. 174.200.36.154 (talk) 02:40, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You mean its not the Russians hypersonic nuke? nobspiss in my ear 02:49, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay okay. So it wasn't a conventional nuke. It was a conventional warhead that only blew up a power plant. OTOH, nobody reported power outages so it couldn't have been a power plant. nobspiss in my ear 07:50, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I heard it was Russian led extraterrestrials. 10:38, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The obvious answer - an absence of Trump. Anna Livia (talk) 10:41, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Latest Headlines: Super Trump strikes again! — Ɖøn Ĵuan   Harass  11:35, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It was infact just massive electrical arcing causing a super-bright blue incandescence. 13:59, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Obviously this was unexpected, it turned out that the contractors has used a Micheal Bay film prop instead of a correctly rated transformer. The premature failure is just shoddy work. 14:02, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * So nothing to do with Project Blue Beam, the Big Rip, the establishment of a SpaceTime/Multiverse crossing portal etc.
 * There is already an aliensdidit(not) story - . Anna Livia (talk) 15:07, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Should we rename in the Bronx after you for your astute observations, Nobs? Bongolian (talk) 17:30, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Now what a minute. The power plant supposedly blew up after Verizon went down nationwide and after the Russians test fired a hypersonic missile. What am I missing? nobspiss in my ear 18:00, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Open your eyes, Rob, the truth is being actively hidden from you! Everyone here at RW is involved in a conspiracy against you, and now I'll be hung for my snitching. Goat help us all. — Ɖøn Ĵuan   Harass  18:02, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I jus dont git it. Are we 'spose to be afeared of the Ruskies or not? If so, why the cover-up? If not,  why do they have Gen. Flynn on the ? nobspiss in my ear 18:11, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It is more complex than it appears - involving FTL travel, matter-anti-matter collisions, Trystero, tachyons... and 'a spiderweb of overloaded power sockets.' Anna Livia (talk) 20:19, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * This can only mean one thing: The Cybertronians have arrived en masse. Get ready for the days of Optimus Prime and Megatron, their power grows stronger as we speak. — Ɖøn Ĵuan   Harass  20:44, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The boyz in Pentagon seem worried. nobspiss in my ear 23:29, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * There's no more of a reliable source than official Russian propaganda. McCarthy, your hero, would be proud. — Ɖøn Ĵuan   Harass  00:03, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

and a close up of a storm (the storms being about the size of our moon each)
—

Wow, imagine a marble run with that. Willthenut (talk) 23:19, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Ultima Thule
For anyone away from the internet for a few days, here's the first image of our distant lonely snowman-asteroid that's got so many science enthusiasts off their rockers:



Christmas hat
Why doesn't the logo-brain have its usual Christmas hat on? Or has RW decided to celebrate according to the Julian Calendar? Anna Livia (talk) 10:27, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * How do you put the hat on though? 11:37, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Because times change and people move on, and the people who both knew how to do it and wanted to do it are long gone. Avida Dollarsher again 15:02, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Would it be possible to have a group of 'seasonal greetings' appearing for a day or two on the Main Page (Happy Equinoxes and Solstices, various New Years, 'The end of the world is not nigh' (when somebody promotes their latest Armageddon-theory) etc? And the login screen could have 'Please select a suitably seasonal Look-at-me username' as a header. Anna Livia (talk) 20:15, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * So like Holydaze on the mainpage? This can be done. Not sure what your festive username idea is exactly, but I can change the login screen text if needed. 21:52, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Those who provide usernames which they know will get banned within a short time should be persuaded to try something different (and so on 1 April they self-describing themselves). Anna Livia (talk) 11:02, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Put a Menorah on the Judaism page, eh? Willthenut (talk) 23:21, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Fuck notability
See why here. — Ɖøn Ĵuan   Harass  12:16, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * i agree, thats why i'm starting a page on the guy who works down the chip shop who swears hes elvis. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:25, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That's one of the best pieces i've seen in the essayspace in the 4 years I've been here yet you completely destroyed it with one sarcastic quip--Spoony (talk) 14:53, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Did you even read the essay? — Ɖøn Ĵuan   Harass  13:31, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * yes i did. earlier and back when it was first posted. its shite. without some semblance of notability there is no reason not include my elvis friend, (though hes a liar and im not sure about you).


 * without notability there are many things that are nonsense that would just wither and die without a spotlight being shone on it, without the likes of us poking them with a stick would never be notable. i am convinced this is the case with flat earthers, for example. i dont believe anyone believes the earth is flat save one or two lunatics. the spotlight provided from various internet sources just showed conspiracy theorists a theory to add their list and to contrarians who would argue black is white and white is black. then suddenly its notable. (on that note, clowns arnt scary either. its just a thing that people say)


 * without notability we just feed into the delusions of random folk with obvious mental health issues and a youtube account, humouring them by 'confirming' their sense of paranoia when we point and laugh at them. without any notability this to me is just outright bullying of the unwell.


 * it becomes not so much 'dont feed the troll' but leave that lunatic alone - its not victorian times, its no longer acceptable to pay a penny to tour bedlam. but as with dftt i doubt its something we are able to do. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:53, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I feel I must both agree and disagree with all of you. While I agree that crank ideas should be fought, we should avoid making the problem worse via the Streisand effect, wherein we inadvertently make a crank seem more interesting than they already are. Thusly, there must be some sort of minimum standards in regard to notability. If I go digging I can find all sorts of crazy stuff (and in the past I have), but is it worth talking about? A generic crank who spouts standard talking points on an obscure YouTube channel isn't as worthwhile as one with a multi-site media presence and a 5k+ following. 15:35, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I've explained my problems with notability in depth before, "A Massive Gay." Just because we may be aware of something doesn't mean the average person is, it's easy being skeptical coming from a state of knowledge, but the average person, no matter how rational they might otherwise be, will still fall victim to bullshit without an easily available source of information on hand to educate people about the actual nature of things. — Ɖøn Ĵuan   Harass  17:30, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I also agree that notability plays an important role in preventing the Streisland effect. I also think our goal is not to be a comprehensive resource in covering every swath of crazy. This is especially true for those that only repeat talking points and end up being either bland and lite on content or echoing articles on more notable figures who share the viewpoints. I think everyone has a notability metric and different thresholds for what is notable or not, so negotiating those can be tricky. But I think most people agree that we shouldn't have bland articles on trite talking points by small fry. 18:42, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * @don juan - fall victim to what? something that the will never ever encounter because its just some lone loon on youtube that you would have actively search for in the first place? AMassiveGay (talk) 19:59, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Ultimately, we're here to fight the crankery, not the crank. Focus on debunking flat Earth theory itself, not flat earth zealot #9479384930018. Using notable cranks as example is just practicality: more people are more likely to be familiar with them, and it's easier to find information about them. 173.71.123.144 (talk) 03:56, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 14:50, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

i am sickened that no one acknowledged my kirsty maccoll reference. i know its christmas and many of you would have had better things to do and all, but you are all worse than hitler AMassiveGay (talk) 09:49, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Kirsty who? Kencolt (talk) 10:23, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * this is why the terrorists are winning. not so long ago, this might have a rye smile and a 'i see what you did there'. now? i bet you all throwing sacks of kittens into a river. you've changed rw. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:27, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you drunk? 14:08, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It is the day after Christmas... 14:51, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Never mind a wry smile. I had a proper chuckle at that reference. I didn't think I'd have to point that out. But here I am, massively pointing out that I got the reference and also explaining the joke to all the other scumbags and maggots. Did you see what I did there? Spud (talk) 16:10, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * you skirted the problematic next line? Avida Dollarsher again 18:39, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

I did indeed. You know, given that the song was written by an Englishman and an Irishman in 1985, before the internet was much of a thing, I don't think they really knew what that word meant in the States. After all, the NYPD doesn't have a choir so the songwriters probably weren't exerts in all things American. Spud (talk) 01:06, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Quick, someone make an article on Kristy MacGuffin, that'll show the anti-notability folk. 18:58, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Her dad Ewan was a communist, and her biggest hit was written by the socialist Billy Bragg., get cracking! Avida Dollarsher again 18:46, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yikes, those are unfortunate connections! --RWRW (talk) 19:13, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * There's a Commie in the closet! Quick, someone call Joe "I've got a little list" McCarthy! — Ɖøn Ĵuan   Harass  19:55, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Avida Dollarsher again 20:08, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

COMMIE BASTARDS!!!!! THEY'VE INFILTRATED EVERY LEVEL OF RATIONALWIKI!!! I am Don Juan, and I've got a little list of RWians who have turned traitor by adopting the treasonous "ideology" of communism, they are, as I speak:

Do the treacherous commie filth listed above have anything to say in their defense?! — Ɖøn Ĵuan   Harass  20:25, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * *closes YouTube tab playing USSR anthem*  Who have you been talking to? Where are you getting this information? --RWRW (talk) 20:30, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The defendant does not get to ask questions unless the Court permits it, commie. — Ɖøn Ĵuan   Harass  21:08, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey I am a commie too. 21:37, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * NO!!!!!! THE INFESTATION IS DEEPER THAN EVEN I THOUGHT!!! DAMN YOU, REDS!!!! — Ɖøn Ĵuan   Harass  21:42, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Which ”court”, Don Juan? This is the RationalWiki Unacceptable Activities Committee, or for short and we will expose, denounce and destroy all those reds under the beds that are threatening our rational community with their insidious and nefarious existence! ScepticWombat (talk) 08:13, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The better to root out the commie filth infesting our glorious wiki! — Ɖøn Ĵuan   Harass  13:22, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

What's so special about countries?
Sparked by the previous discussion and featuring me going full tilt anarchist, what's so special about countries? Other than being administrative boundaries they're just lines on a map in my eyes. 15:16, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Tribalism - it's in our genes, humans are naturally tribalistic, countries are just another form of tribe. — Ɖøn Ĵuan   Harass  15:17, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Good question, Comrade! I would like to add that people are different and like to compete, for prestige, resources or other things. If dogs urinate to mark their territories, than humans do so with political maps, fences, walls, and flags. Here is something fun for you to watch. It shows how different countries can be, starkly different. (This YouTube channel has been making a whole bunch of videos like this.)

Nerd (talk) 16:17, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Without countries you can't be a nationalist and I couldn't say my country is better than ur country and ur country smells. 16:34, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Some parts of the world are better than others. Would you rather be born in Norway or North Korea? If you are looking for a job, would you rather be in Germany or Greece? If you are an international investor, would you consider doing business in the U.S., Switzerland, and Singapore, or Djibouti, Swaziland, and Somalia? If you are a specialist in the field artificial intelligence, your chances of success, assuming you are willing to work really hard, are optimal in China and the U.S. Very few, if any, other countries even come close to these "AI Superpowers".
 * Things can be different even in the same country. For example, Eastern China is extremely well developed compared to the Western parts of that country. Nerd (talk) 16:47, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, but there are those who would argue that without the administrative boundaries that national boarders provide, the distribution of progress would be more even. Personally I think such thinking is overly optimistic, but it does raise a few interesting points. Additionally, let's use eastern vs western china as an example here, just to play things out. When you say more developed, do you mean in all areas or just more urbanized? 17:07, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I do think that such a vision is overly optimistic and are as realistic as the idea of a planet that can be classified as a "forest world" or an "ocean world" found in certain science-fiction novels or movies. People are just too different.
 * As for Eastern vs. Western China, Eastern China is of course more urbanized, and with urbanization comes better infrastructure and more economic opportunities. It is a general trend, not just in China but in other countries as well, that people tend to move to urban areas in search of jobs. Metropolitan areas occupy only a tiny fraction of the Earth's land mass but is already home to about half of humanity. High population density means higher demand for things like accommodation, education, mass transit, and so on. Nerd (talk) 17:17, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I thought that might be what you were referring to but I needed to be sure before responding. High Urbanization has major downsides, among which is resource supply. Mining, farming, refining, and processing must all take place away from high residential areas in order to minimize the danger to the inhabitants, as well as to account for needed land in the case of farming and mining. Thus one could argue that less urbanized areas such as Western China are an inevitable trade-off to the more urbanized areas such as Eastern China, and that even without national boarders such trade-offs would occur. Thus I'm not really sure where you going with the idea that nations are required for such population movements, or am I reading that wrong? 17:37, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, indeed. Trade-offs are inevitable. High population density means lower capacity, plus the things you mentioned. No, these things happen regardless of national borders. I was answering a question you raised on urbanization. The world is not "flat," so to speak, regardless of whether or not kingdoms, or nation-states exist.
 * Small correction: Western China tends to be arid and thus unsuitable for agriculture. China's major rivers actually flow East, where the most fertile land is to be found. More fertile land means more people. Nerd (talk) 17:49, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * high population density = easier to get laid. checkmate i think. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:05, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The science seems to tally. 00:53, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * What in heaven's name is the meaning of this? In the name of Her Majesty the Queen, I'm shocked, good sir! Shocked, I say!
 * Facultative sex? Sounds interesting. I like options. Nerd (talk) 15:10, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I thought I should mention this. Different groups of people think and behave differently. More specifically, they have different priorities, which means that accept different trade-offs. For example, would you prefer a highly competitive and innovative market, or a high-tax and heavily regulated one that lags behind? Regulations here concern consumer and privacy protections, as well as labor laws ensuring things like paid vacation leave. This video explores this choice for the IT industry. The economics fascinates me. Nerd (talk) 23:32, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Street preachers
Having gone past one today (usual Jesus guff) - do they ever actually convert anybody?

Those people who actually #do something# in the name of their faith (even if it is something as minor as 'consciously being polite to people'/arranging the church flowers and similar) are going to leave a better impression. Anna Livia (talk) 20:47, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Surprisingly, yes. Or so some born again Christians claim. I personally have never met a street preacher, which given my attitude towards religion might be a good thing, otherwise one might hear of a man faking conversion, complete with holy spirit drama and speaking in tongues. 21:26, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I understand that in previous times some locals in places where the missionaries went to convert with the help of gifts would, quite sensibly, allow themselves to be repeatedly 'converted.'
 * From what I have observed such street preachers get totally ignored - but the buskers get a certain amount of loose change. I was curious as to what others had observed.
 * Making the world even a slightly better place/showing courtesy and goodwill to all is a good thing to do - whatever your system of beliefs/ethics/outlook (and satisfies Pascal's wager as well). Anna Livia (talk) 23:53, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Few years ago there was a guy who walked around town with a sign that proclaimed the world was ending. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 14:54, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * If the Salvation Army lot and the Hare Krishnas are excluded (as not being street preachers) Stanley Green seemingly had slightly more success. Anna Livia (talk) 18:45, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Besides JWs, who put displays with brochures and I've hardly seen people with them (I remember to have asked once them if they gave aways Bibles, no such luck), there're two types, all inmigrants: those who go after individuals, usually just also inmigrants and ignoring everyone else (ie: locals), and those who are preaching screaming.
 * The latter are ignored and it does not help either they're of the Fundie variety, threatening with the Lake of Fire or that we'll lament not to have heard him when Jesus comes. Panzerfaust (talk) 12:48, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * If you're confused about the bell ringers, the Salvation Army sources them from the homeless. Which is outsourcing panhandling, but these people are earning a building and a bed.  Christmas is over and it's "good luck, see ya," for the bell ringers.  One I dodged sang the first verse of jingle bells as his go-to.  You think that earned him a spot?  Why was he so happy to sing, then?  You think he's not been told "Christmas is over, try with Wal-Mart"? I don't have a home for the guy.  I didn't break change for the Salvation Army either.  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 07:39, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * One thing I don't get are those ones who say the world will end at so-and-so a time. I wonder what they do when the world DOESN'T end. Willthenut (talk) 19:41, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Video about aliens
https://youtu.be/p6UFrQDVRyI

I think this video treads conspiracy theory territory. Still like the channel. I am not saying that what the video says is impossible. Emergency Action Notification --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:31, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the above video can be summed up as JAQing off. — Ɖøn Ĵuan   Harass  13:25, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Unlike Science 2.0, who believes in aliens in almost every conceivable way and goes so far as to claim that all the slot machines in Reno have aliens inside them (presumably because he's sore about losing his life savings). Willthenut (talk) 19:48, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Hidden Flying Phenomenon
A channel called Hidden Flying Phenomenon (HFP) has lately appeared on YouTube. The mental breakdown of someone home alone for the holidays? Or a subtle parody of woo? Enjoy. Millennium Scallion (talk) 17:49, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Science 2.0 is also like that- a guy gradually losing his head until he claims that Bigfoot hates Gwen Stefani. Willthenut (talk) 19:40, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

What Would Happen If...
I dug a tunnle through the North Pole to the South Pole? Forgive me for this childish question, but it's been a longtime question I've been meaning to ask someone.

How would gravity come into play, and what are the physics of this? Mí má kȍhà hńg gǀȕì ō ǁȁhìn-ā ō hȁ ō gǀè gù ǀxūúnnu. (talk) 19:02, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That is actually a very interesting question. Any physics undergraduate has seen this before. It does not have to be from the North Pole to the South Pole. It can be any hole that is as long as the diameter of the Earth and the gravitational physics works out the same. But before I get to the answer, I need to explain something first. So hang on.
 * There is a useful result in physics that applies to any inverse square law known as Newton's . Now, Newton's law of universal gravitation only applies to point masses. If you want the gravitational field or potential of an extended body, you need to add up all the contributions from all the points making up that body. (This is where integral calculus comes in. But we won't need it here.) Newton's Shell Theorem states that outside a spherically symmetric shell, the gravitational field is as if all the mass of the shell is concentrated at its center. Inside, the force is identically zero. But a ball is just a stack of concentric spheres, so you can use integral calculus yet again. And again, outside, the gravitational field of the ball is that of a point particle of the same mass. Inside, the force varies linearly as a function of the distance from the center, rather like Hooke's law of elasticity.
 * And we have the answer to your question. If we were to dig a hole through the center of the Earth and drop a test particle in it, the particle would undergo simple harmonic motion, as far as gravitational physics is concerned. In other words, it would just oscillate back and forth, rather like a mass on a frictionless spring. Nerd (talk) 20:03, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You would melt while going through the centre. Because HOT HOT HOT. 20:37, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Or drown as the Arctic Ocean poured into the hole. Avida Dollarsher again 22:15, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Funny thought, but wouldn't that create a giant geezer as the water is converted into steam and forced back out? 22:50, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That's what happened to Krakatoa in 1883. Avida Dollarsher again 23:11, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Gravity would reverse and about halfway through you would go from falling to climbing. Willthenut (talk) 23:26, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Willthenut, would my view change at all? Mí má kȍhà hńg gǀȕì ō ǁȁhìn-ā ō hȁ ō gǀè gù ǀxūúnnu. (talk) 02:57, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

The tunnel can never be more than hypothetical because the crushing pressure and intense heat would destroy any conceivable tunnel material long before one got near the center. Consider that the only reached about 12 km deep, but the Earth's crust (outer layer) is 5-70 km deep. The Earth's center is 6,371 km deep. Drilling was stopped at Kola because of higher than expected temperatures (180 °C). Bongolian (talk) 04:45, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * higher than expected temperatures or mole men? AMassiveGay (talk) 09:35, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * What type of mole men we talking about? One of them bastards tried to rip me off the other day, saying he had a tunnel to sell me in Alaska. — Ɖøn Ĵuan   Harass  14:20, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

The TRUE Answer
Walnut would happen if you dug straight through the Earth. — Ɖøn Ĵuan   Harass  11:44, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Question - what is the largest solid body through which a hole could be drilled, should 'a probe with drilling attachment' be sent to them? Anna Livia (talk) 20:10, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Ghost proof
If there was a photo of a ghost without photoshop or anything, would you or would you not believe in ghosts? Willthenut (talk) 23:05, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Something tells me that whatever you're about to share will be of such blatantly crappy quality as to make debunking it redundant. 02:13, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * There's fairly basic problems with this question too: What exactly makes something in a photo "a ghost"?  Why should I see something, no matter how unusual, and decide "ghost" is an accurate description of it?  What are the defining visible characteristics of a ghost?  With a dog, for example you could say that, while there are exceptions to all these things, you generally file them under "4 legs, tail, fur, long muzzle, size in range of 10-150 pounds."  With a ghost, it's pretty much just "well, you just know it's a ghost because it's weird but somehow humanish" ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 02:26, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * What if it was a white spectre?Willthenut (talk) 04:54, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Did you read a word and I wrote? You don't have any proof of what a ghost might be let alone what such a thing would actually be. But whatever, cough up your picture.  05:03, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

if ghosts turned out to be real, and you had an honest to goodness photo of one, i'm still going to think its a hoax of some kind. if i came face to face with a ghost i would assume its a hoax or a drug fuelled hallucination. i'd require some kind widely known announcement from respected scientists saying ghosts are real and they done extensive research to prove it. otherwise, i will always think it a hoax, no matter how convincing a photo you think you have. you can create convincing photos and videos cheaply and easily these days. you require more than a photo for proof. AMassiveGay (talk) 09:45, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know man, I've experienced some weird things in my day that make me tilt my head a little, but I hesitate (and that's putting it mildly) to say the weird phenomena I experienced was caused by ghosts or anything supernatural. — Ɖøn Ĵuan   Harass  14:25, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * What if the ghost resembled a human in almost every conceivable way, but also possessed so many supernatural qualities that it could not be something of this world? Willthenut (talk) 18:06, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Pictures, now or you're just JAQing off and the conversation ends. 18:09, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * @don juan - if you inclined to believe in such things, then everything unexplained becomes ghosts and stuff, and the more you think about them the more convinced you become. whats weird to you is common place to some else. how much of an effort to get to the bottom of such things do people generally make? chances are if you cant think of an explanation right away it gets talked up as spooky story to tell down the pub. if ghost were real, they wouldnt be weird or spooky - they'd be everywhere. think of all the creatures that have lived on this planet. all the cows that have died. the dinosaurs. amoebas, cockroaches. where are all the ghosts of cockroaches? if ghosts were real we'd see them all the time and not realise they were even ghosts. a spooky shadow in a photograph? lazy hoax. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:23, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, here's the picture. Just keep in mind, it really weirds me out. I took it at the Boston marathon last year, and then I noticed the ghost in there. Real scary. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1l0BTcUaseytqJFlDwjwqVlgOjfnGrVuj/view?usp=sharing Keep in mind, this pic ain't for the faint of heart. Willthenut (talk) 18:27, 31 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Where's the ghost? All I see is a 'Shopped rectangular head. Scream!! (talk) 18:32, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Which a Tin Eye search locates (among others) as 'The Nun' here Scream!! (talk) 18:38, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No, that was just some lady dressed up as The Nun. Notice anything... unusual... in the background? Willthenut (talk) 18:39, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Errr ... no?Scream!! (talk) 18:43, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The kid on the extreme LEFT with the tan baseball cap is looking RIGHT at the camera. Also... HE HAS NO BODY. Willthenut (talk) 18:47, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * What are you on? Can I get some please it seems to be good. Scream!! (talk) 18:52, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Nobody else is looking straight at the camera. THAT KID with the white hat is a ghost. I'm positive of it. Willthenut (talk) 18:54, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * LogicnSuch, you're an idiot. My first prediction was dead on the money. Go somewhere else, you pathetically immature moron. 19:00, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * PSA Ghosts are NOT REAL, so this hypothetical argument is really just asking; how easily are you conned. 19:09, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm just saying, that kid in the hat looks sorta suspicious. I suppose he might not be a ghost. Willthenut (talk) 19:26, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Here's a tip from a pro. If you're going to fake a new identity, don't use the exact same behavior as your old identity. Unless you're a juvenile attention seeking moron who requires other people's responses because their parents didn't love them enough, or loved them too much. 19:36, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * My post is nothing like that. Just a simple question.Willthenut (talk) 19:39, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It's the same presentation of obviously faked pictures, the same JAQing off, the same concern trolling bullcrap, the same in every single way. And, it's by the same person. No one cares about your pathetically insignificant life, you dumbass little brat. If you have issues with no one caring, see a shrink instead of playing these idiotic games with strangers on the internet. 19:44, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No need to respond if you don't want to respond. Willthenut (talk) 19:45, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Fuck this sealioning bullshit. You want attention, you got it. It's toxic as all fuck but you got it. You happy now? No? Too bad. 19:49, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't need or want any attention. Willthenut (talk) 20:15, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I didn't say I believed in such things, in fact I said I would be, at best, hesitant to ascribe supernatural phenomena to be the cause of the weird events I've experienced, when there are perfectly natural explanations for most of them, the few that can't be pinned down to natural causes include a compass flying across my room out of fucking nowhere. Don't ask for evidence because I don't have any, anecdotal evidence is the best I got, and I am painfully aware that anecdotes are the weakest form of evidence. — Ɖøn Ĵuan   Harass  20:35, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Say there WAS a photo, though, which had been PROVEN not to have been altered in any way- would it work? Willthenut (talk) 20:37, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you shut the hell up, you're derailing the conversation. — Ɖøn Ĵuan   Harass  20:38, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

For my EAS YouTube channel, I am considering making a scenario involving a Trump emergency.
The idea is that Trump gets impeached and goes on a rampage. Anyone like the idea?

This message is approved by Undead EAS Productions. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 04:17, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Will it include nukes? 12:41, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * trump on a rampage is not scary - hes not exactly physically capable of anything. nukes and other crazy orders? thats going to require other people to go along with him. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:50, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Having it involves nukes sounds good. One EAS scenario from a channel I am subscribed to has a similar scenario. Done by the Final Minutes channel. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 13:21, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It'll be Trump's farewell speech. — Ɖøn Ĵuan   Harass  14:18, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * In 6 years time. --RWRW (talk) 14:36, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Considering the way things are going against him, I doubt it. — Ɖøn Ĵuan   Harass  14:43, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You have no idea how much money is going into 2020, if you thought the last election is rigged, just wait till you see what happens this time round. 18:09, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Sounds like fun. The scenario should include him shooting someone in the middle of fifth avenue. Finds out he can get away with it just like he predicted. Then he gets a bunch of weapons and drives through blue states gunning down random people yelling how a president can't be prosecuted. He ends up at the Mexican border for a big slaughter finale. Oh and dont forget to have him he divorce Melania and take Ivanka as his wife. Millennium Scallion (talk) 19:46, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I like the input. Got the creative juices flowing. Undead EAS Productions thanks RationalWiki. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 20:28, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Fucking Xbox
My fucking Xbox is refusing to take my goddamn disk even though the disc is relatively intact and the damn thing will take other discs perfectly fine. We tried cleaning it, doing everything, even using a lens cleaner to make the goddamn disc work, and it still won't accept the damn thing. Advice anyone? — Ɖøn Ĵuan   Harass  15:51, 31 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Chuck it. Actually, the drive might need replacing. It's usually a module that can be taken out and a new one put back in. Other than that? Use downloads. Or as i suggested, chuck it. Cardinal Chang (talk) 17:34, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Ghost Proof 2.0
I'm not going to lie, I've experienced odd things, and now it's time to talk about it. All of the following is true. A few years ago, in 2015 I believe, my grandmother was a heavy smoker and since I was around her a lot, I was getting a constant influx of second hand smoke and it slightly worried me. So in the middle of the night on my bed, half asleep I said, "God, if you're real, make my lungs clean''.

I also asked that my grandmother be given strength to quit. I didn't mean any god in particular, and my prayer didn't end in amen, but I said it with sincerity. After that, as I gradually became more asleep, my thoughts drifted to other things. Fifteen minutes passed and I was awoken from my sleep by the sensation of cold in my chest. I was honestly kind of freaked out, but it went away and I was left wondering whether or not this was the answer.

There was also the time that I heard an eldritch (no other word to describe it) voice utter something unintelligible, and I've never used drugs before. I wasn't just scared either, I remember wanting to understand what had been said. Mí má kȍhà hńg gǀȕì ō ǁȁhìn-ā ō hȁ ō gǀè gù ǀxūúnnu. (talk) 19:07, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Bullshit. Willthenut (talk) 20:21, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * What you experienced in regards to the nightmarish experience upon waking can be chalked up to sleep paralysis, and perhaps you've unwillingly committed the fallacy of correlation is equivalent to causation, when we know that not to be the case. Coincidences happen. — Ɖøn Ĵuan   Harass  20:32, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I remember as a child I had a weird experience. It was Christmas day and I got a remote control car. I played with it but set in down to get a drink. I shit you not, the car was moving on it's own. Everyone was confused. No one touched anything. Weird. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 21:59, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * god is ghos and we are all god and we are all ghos and the universe is an uh... *squints* "immaculate matrix"24.120.253.250 (talk) 23:13, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

New Years Resolution
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) 68.0.189.224 (talk) 00:09, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I resolve not to set myself up for failure. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 02:05, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm finally gonna learn to snap. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 06:33, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * My New Year resolution is 1920 x 1080 Full HD. 13:32, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Any Truth this Claim?
''Consider the psychological effect of such fatalistic indoctrination. If one’s whole existence is determined and the benefits of our current actions are not realized until some successive stage, hopelessness seems assured. Something of this despair can perhaps be seen empirically. Buddhist-dominant countries tend to have very high suicide rates. In fact, J. Warner Wallace has noted that the “the top twenty most suicidal countries are almost all countries with strong Buddhist or Communist (atheist) histories.”41 In Buddhist countries, the suicide rate is about 18 in 100,000 annually. In Thailand there is a suicide every two hours, and in China there is a suicide every two minutes.'' Mí má kȍhà hńg gǀȕì ō ǁȁhìn-ā ō hȁ ō gǀè gù ǀxūúnnu. (talk) 03:08, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * In 2016 the the all-population suicide rate of the US was 13.6 per 100,000, the all population rate in China was 8.0. This is just bigotry wrapped up in a half-assed cultural analysis shell  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 03:40, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "If one’s whole existence is determined and the benefits of our current actions are not realized until some successive stage" accurately describes the Christian concept of divine judgement after death (heaven and hell Armaggedon, etc.). Conspicuous how the author only ascribes their claims to "Buddhist and Communist" cultures. 173.71.123.144 (talk) 04:21, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Does value exist?
I read something in a Buddhist magazine called Lion's Roar about how nothing is "worth it" because value is just some imaginary metric that we use to judge the world around us and that it doesn't really exist. The response to the "if its not worth it then why do it" was something along the lines of "the marvel of your being" which doesn't really answer the question at all (then again expecting it would was hoping too much).

But does Value actually exist though.Machina (talk) 03:33, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * To be clear, are you asking about intrinsic or assigned value? 04:24, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * "The marvel of your being" is a value yet it says "nothing is worth it because value is just..." so, either there is some greater insight there and we don't have enough text/context or you didn't share enough text/context with us, or, as is often the case in many Bhuddist texts, there is an unresolved conflict or it's another wishy washy narrative with some insight and a lot of conceptual babble. Shabi  DOO  12:07, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * To put it succinctly - what is the 'value' in contributing to RW? Anna Livia (talk) 12:09, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I guess it's a matter of both, the way the put it was that value is just something imaginary that we assign to things. There wasn't much context to that, what you see it the whole of it. Made no sense to me since it didn't answer the question. It's weird how they mix stuff like that in the magazine with activism, advocating for compassion and kindness, and promoting Art and being an artist.Machina (talk) 19:44, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * There is an obvious contradiction in saying nothing has value: the statement "nothing has value" has no value to me. The trap you have fallen into involves the assumption that the conclusion that you feel forced into has very negative implications. Your own system of values has put you in that place.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:47, 17 December 2018 (UTC).
 * There is no such thing as intrinsic value. This is because value is based on the wants, needs, and desires of the observer who assigns said value. It is also the main reason I asked my first question. Whenever the subject(s) of meaning, value, and/or purpose comes up I am required to define terms in order to be clear about what I'm referring to. 23:07, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. Perhaps intrinsic value is a claim of generally agreed upon high value, such as the intrinsic value of rare metals.Ariel31459 (talk) 23:37, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * But nothing having value is a pretty grim conclusion. It would lead to paralysis.Machina (talk) 00:22, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It appears that I have lost you. inherent value, for anything, does not exist. We assign value to things that we view as useful, special, and worthwhile. Again, this goes back to how the human brain defines value, and why. And on to the whole "grim conclusion" bit. So what? I assign value to life because it is fleeting, to video games and books because they make me feel emotionally fulfilled, to learning because it helps me grow, and to role models because of the work that went into their achievements. So what if there's no greater meaning or value, or if it'll all turn to dust in the end? So what if there's nothing and no one running the freak show we call reality? Why are these things needed? What purpose do they serve? what is their value? 00:35, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You don't get what I am saying. That value according to them is just some imaginary measure we use to judge and that it doesn't really exist.Machina (talk) 02:04, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Then as far as I can tell they don't know what they're talking about. 02:50, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Value is determined by how many hours (and by extension days. weeks, years, etc.) of your labor you are willing to give to get the things you want. And money, as a standard unit of measure, need'nt even factor in. A farmer in a remote region, or Lapland reindeer herder, the value of their crop or herd is determined by the amount of effort they put into it to feed themselves. Money is only for comparative value of equal amounts of labor in different employments. nobspiss in my ear 03:48, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Machina is talking about value in the abstract, i.e. in general. Lay off the economic babble. 13:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think he cares to, though. I think that's his honest view on value.  But how do we value that opinion?  On the amount of work it took him to come up with?  On the amount of time it took him to write, on how much time we spend considering it?  I think nobs is actually on point here.  Especially in relation to Buddhist values.  And hey, I'm a nihilist, so give me my due "your positions are already invalid" ribbing.  I mean, "money is only for comparative value of equal amounts of labor in different employments."  How abstract does a guy need to get?
 * My point is, everything is an abstraction, and you can't deny the things that make the most sense to you are based on perceptions and interpretations. Where Buddhism falters, as opposed to a secular interpretation of this idea, is the promise that it is BETTER to free yourself from anything other than Buddhist worldviews.  But you can apply this to any number of things, and what do you get?  You get an interpretation of value, most commonly economic, but undeniably an interpretation.  I think our good friend nobs was applying this method in good faith, and even if he won't express it outside of who gets paid for what.  I mean, he's talkin reality, surgeons and taxi drivers have different realities.
 * So, while it seems obtuse to move the argument to wages, I think nobs means to point out the fact that we do assign value, and it is fairly abstract, which means we might be wrong about how we currently do it! To aspire for riches and helping people is a good route to being a snake-oil salesman.  To refuse to be anything other than self-reliant under the wrong circumstances can lead to homelessness.  Buddhism isn't a lens with which we can consider these eventualities.  Neither is "doing your own thing to reach your own values."  Correct me if I'm interpreting this wrong. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 06:01, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, this is the moral objection to a guaranteed income. Since the unit of measure - money - has no cost to the recipient in time and trouble, it has no value. nobspiss in my ear 09:18, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, so if we gave people money, they wouldn't know what it meant so they wouldn't know how to spend it to the proper extent of its value? I don't think this is a moral argument.  I mean, is it immoral to give a homeless person food and shelter even if they're too mentally challenged to turn that into a net gain for society?  Is there anyone who is homeless who could create a net gain for society with the benefit of minimal housing and food that they currently don't have access to?  I recognize that this isn't the same as putting the money in the hands of the homeless person, but the moral argument doesn't make a lot of sense, because usually making a moral decision implies the risk of losing what you offer for no reason other than risking it and promises no return.  So, if the ideology is 'nobody gets to have anything until they understand the value of it,' what are the odds a trust fund baby knows the value of a dollar better than somebody who works 60 hours to feed their kids and pay rent?  I mean, can we extrapolate to say nobs is against inheritance and pro "death-tax?" Gol Sarnitt (talk) 07:16, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Of coarse this question would come up. What's ths moral difference between (A) a worker who spends their whole paycheck on dope, say $500, and (B) a person who spends their entire disability check on dope, say $500, and (C) a person who breaks into your car and steals something worth $500 to trade for dope and does $1000 in damage doing so? Which person understands the value of $500? nobspiss in my ear 07:31, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * they would all understand the value of $500. the situations presented generally implies that that these folk would be living hand to mouth coupled with substance issues. if anyone understands the value of $500, its these people. AMassiveGay (talk) 08:09, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That's I think, the point. The value of a dollar is immutable, and that value matters more to a person  who lives dollar to dollar.  To equalize the situation by handing out, say 100 dollars a month can not change the value of a dollar.  The value of a dollar as interpreted by the person who holds it is subjective, but a dollar is legal tender.  A gold coin is not legal tender. Are you worried about dope prices going up"?  How do you justify your own value, or the things you value?  If you try to do it objectively, somebody will tell you it's not worth the price.Gol Sarnitt (talk) 09:44, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I should clarify, the value of a dollar immutable to the owner who wants to use it as legal tender. The person accepting the tender is the one in charge of how much a dollar is worth.  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:29, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Alabama police department blames Satan for spike in homocides
Because why do your job when you can just blame Satan for it? 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 02:53, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Wingnuts act like wingnuts. In other news, water is wet. RoninMacbeth (talk) 03:52, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * When your population is comparable to my high school... Like, it probably is a semi-effective shaming technique.  But for a town this small to take to Twitter to try and reach the youth by tweeting...  I dunno, I'm mixed in my opinion.  I mean it's way stupid, but where do you source an effective sheriff and police force for this?  We're worried about hall monitors here.  Which is not to delegitimize the complaint.  The complaint is legit.  Maybe it's just good that they reared the Twitter head and got a Twitter smack-down for now.Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:02, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The police department is supposed to be solving and dealing with crime. Is our tax dollars going to incompetent jackals who cry about Satan? How sad. The police should be doing their jobs. If not, fire them. They are not getting paid to be conspiracy theorists. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 16:08, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * This is also how you persuade teenagers to kill cats and write graffiti. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 16:18, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * People will do anything to not do any work and still make a quick buck. — Ɖøn Ĵuan   Harass  08:29, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks like these cops should stop getting a paycheck until they do their jobs. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 14:38, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * So if it's not Satan, whodunnit? nobspiss in my ear 07:57, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Jesus did it. — Ɖøn Ĵuan   Harass  12:37, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

How about making the police do their fucking jobs
Sounds like a good plan instead of blaming Satan. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:05, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * This is America. Police are for shooting stuff.   ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:42, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, police officers are paid to uphold the law not brutality or spewing paranoid crap. Replace the incompetent bureaucrats with people who can do what the actual job entails. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:44, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That's other countries. This is america.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:23, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I get it, I really do. I wish every cop was a good cop.  I wish every police department was a good police department.  Would you suspend all police in a tiny Alabama town?  I mean... you probably could, but only fascism would make that a priority.  This is a cultural problem without a solution.  You can't replace this police force, unless you want to go find a crack force who wants to sign up and patrol a society they don't understand with rules they don't get.  For a southern town, are you kidding me?  Sorry, not trying to be mean.  Tweet shows a poor understanding of the church and state separation. But take a minute and look at where the tweet came from before you go sending it on. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 06:45, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Sounds like I'm Blue Lives Matter over here. I'm full Black Lives Matter, police lethal force gets used on blacks like there aren't repercussions.  There are still people thinking there are ghosts and aliens.  We have video footage of cops killing people for no reason.  The police are trying to do they're job.  Fuck em if they can't, but we can start somewhere.  06:54, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Well it is not like blaming Satan is helpful either. Police brutality is also a problem. We have one group of cops who use unnecessary force and another group who is too lazy to actually investigate crime then blame Satan as an escape hatch for their laziness. Talk about being stuck between a rock and a hard place. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:27, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with you on that. I don't think effective policing starts with prayer or ends with a bullet.  I'm sure there are plenty of analogues to other police departments, and I'm sure there are plenty of officers and sheriffs and commissioners who do believe starting each shift with prayer is a top priority.  I mean, if it matters to football players and coaches in these towns, it probably matters just as much to their police departments. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 07:37, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

homocide
is a hate crime. just saying AMassiveGay (talk) 08:22, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * — Ɖøn Ĵuan   Harass  08:34, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * of course its amusement at a typo that get the dftt treatment AMassiveGay (talk) 12:20, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * — Ɖøn Ĵuan   Harass  12:31, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * very unsure on your criteria for troll here AMassiveGay (talk) 13:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not that hard to figure out. Think for a moment, sir, think! — Ɖøn Ĵuan   Harass  14:00, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * nope, it eludes me AMassiveGay (talk) 14:02, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Seriously? It was a troll move to create this entire subsection in the first place, it adds nothing of value and only serves to add filler. — Ɖøn Ĵuan   Harass  14:03, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 'it adds nothing of value and only serves to add filler.' - it was amusing though, at least to me. and there is 'DEATH TO ALL THAT IS HOLY!!!' if we are talking of adding nothing but filler AMassiveGay (talk) 14:11, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Checkmate, you win. — Ɖøn Ĵuan   Harass  17:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Checkmate, you win. — Ɖøn Ĵuan   Harass  17:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Nukes
Should be used more often. 15:05, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Because millions of people would want to deal with nuclear fallout. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 15:28, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That is an astute observation, in fact, support for nuclear annihilation is at an all time high right now, why do you think Trump got elected in the first place? "I`m gonna bomb the shit out of 'em." — Ɖøn Ĵuan   Harass  17:59, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Who breaks the news?
Look, I've been saying this whole thing is fluff since the beginning. I capitulate to a long-time poster for a second because I'm sick of telling people they're wrong/not wrong and this is what happens? Sources To sound properly like a Oppian, it were murders most foul. I'm not going to solve five homicides, and I'm not going to be super defensive of cops who wanna tweet that satan probably made the murders. But I'm also not that defensive of Opp Alabama, the five homicides are not public record, who knows, maybe we should just be a clown factory. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 08:22, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The Cops had access to insider knowledge from Hell itself, and it isn't inconceivable that Satan himself provided the cops the information they needed in return for some eventual kickbacks. — Ɖøn Ĵuan   Harass  14:34, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hahaha, and wouldn't it be just like Satan to provide the cops with the info that they should tweet about it? "Look, God says you should avoid knowledge and sin, you should spread at leas half of that knowledge over Twitter."  Of course, that's only if you think the serpent is Satan, and not just some snake that had arms and legs.  What a difficult time to simultaneously be a literalist and an evangelical.  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:47, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I am a massive troll
Section title changed by Dysk yo

Some have stated that I could be a troll. This is false. To prove that I am not a troll, I will give you potentially valuable information involving Science 2.0 and Videos For People, PROVING that they are, in fact, the same idiot- in exchange for an end to my ban. Are any of you interested in this evidence? It is relatively foolproof and I have discovered it. If any of you want to hear it, simply unban me and I can prove to you, once and for all, that the Videos For People/Science 2.0 universe is much, MUCH more connected than you thought it was. Willthenut (talk) 21:07, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree, you are a massive troll, and no, I won't arbitrarily unban you just because you whined about being binned, provide some constructive edits for a lengthy period of time and then I'll consider paroling you. — Ɖøn Ĵuan   Harass  22:13, 31 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Previously, User:Logicnsuch was also responsible for edit warring on the Backward masking article: uno, due, tre, quattro, cinque.
 * User:Willthenut spammed the Saloon bar with topics like Ghost proof and Ghost proof 2.0. Compare this with the Logicnsuch-introduced topic RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive291.
 * Willthenut made an unscourced claim in the article on Fungus. It has not been reverted yet, unfortunately.
 * In RationalWiki:How I found RationalWiki, Willthenut mentioned the "Science 2.0" YouTube channel, a known User:Logicnsuch/User:Psychiclie vanity project. This shameless self-promotion has not been removed yet, unfortunately. Willthenut continues to mention this YouTube channel in User:Ikanreed's talk page.
 * Willthenut tried to spam the article on Muhammad with a YouTube video.
 * Willthenut edit-warred at the Star Trek article: eins, zwei.
 * 🚫 21:15, 31 December 2018: Willthenut was permabanned for ban evasion.
 * Under the deceptive edit summary of "Article cleanup", User:2Cute4U adds to the article on Brain drain and Appeal to celebrity.
 * 2Cute4U wrote an article on Dove Rose Smith (its talk page is here). The article, which has since been deleted, linked to a Youtube video and her Instagram account. Coincidentally, the Contact section of 2Cute4U's user page links to the same Instagram account. See also: Restore my spam! and User talk:2Cute4U
 * 🚫 14:50, 27 December 2018: Banned for "[c]reating another spam vanity article about herself in spite of being told that content was unwelcome a week ago". The ban has expired, unfortunately; it was not a permaban.
 * 77.111.245.117 (talk) 13:36, 1 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Willthenut = Logicnsuch BUT Dove Smith ≠ Logicnsuch. 15:54, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * What's this all about? A troll? Fiddleit (talk) 21:43, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Happy Public Domain Day!
Are you ready to party like it's 1923?!--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 14:13, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * YES! Steamboat Willie HERE I COME! — Ɖøn Ĵuan   Harass  15:33, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Or for me, party like it's 1968. :) 15:47, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Lucky bastard. (grumbles) — Ɖøn Ĵuan   Harass  15:57, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Advantage of South Korean copyright law :D 15:58, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I thought you lived in the UK, not South Korea. — Ɖøn Ĵuan   Harass  16:00, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes I live in the UK, but wiki site is hosted in South Korea, thus subject to South Korean copyright law. 16:16, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * What wiki site? — Ɖøn Ĵuan   Harass  16:52, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No fun in me telling you, I challenge you find it for yourself and register an account to prove it. :D 17:35, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Challenge accepted. Stalker mode activated. — Ɖøn Ĵuan   Harass  17:36, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If this is the one you're talking about, your system crashed. — Ɖøn Ĵuan   Harass  17:42, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Nope that's not it. 18:33, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * So why is the site down? — Ɖøn Ĵuan   Harass  19:43, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Its not down, it just doesn't have anything at the domain root to stop Google indexing it. You need to specify a complete URL, wiki.org.uk/wiki to get to it. However it's basically just a spare frontend at the moment, as I moved everything to military.org.uk instead. 21:02, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Arthur, I think you'll find this most interesting. Drink! — Ɖøn Ĵuan   Harass  08:51, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks shady... 11:02, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Just because my purpose in life may be a detriment to yours doesn't mean you have the right to infringe on what I want to do with my life. Drink! — Ɖøn Ĵuan   Harass  11:30, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Lol. Cheers mate. 12:16, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * So you approve of me stalking and harassing you until the day you or I die? Great! I'll be sure to libel you when the time comes. On a less joking and more genuine note, cheers, Arthur. May you live a long and fulfilling life, free of harassment and stalking. — Ɖøn Ĵuan   Harass  12:58, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

That Little Skelm!
This is just one of the many, many lies promoted on this site, and AiG knows that claims like the above are false (or rather, they must know), yet they never deter from any of them. Either they assume no one will fact check anything on their site, or they are not concerned at all. Do the writers at AiG believe a single jod of that which they promote? They have to be conmen. Why doesn't anyone call them out on it, I wish I could email them the statistics. སྤྱན་རས་གཟིགས་ (talk) 06:45, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * AiG's purpose is apologetics, to defend the faith, one religion, Christianity, even if it means to violate the Ninth Commandment. These fundamentalists cherry pick what verses from the Bible they want to follow, and what they want to ignore. — Ɖøn Ĵuan   Harass  10:28, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Petralona Man
Is anyone familiar with the Petralona Man or early human origins in general? I recently saw this link https://www.greecehighdefinition.com/blog/2018/12/28/700000-year-old-human-skull-challenges-the-out-of-africa-theory-found-in-greece-cy5e3?rq=700%2C000 posted by a racist as evidence that the African origins of modern humanity is bunk. I don't know much about dating techniques or the different groups of early hominids. Is there an actual controversy here? My gut feeling is no, but I'm obviously not particularly educated on the topic.

Alec (talk) 18:30, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * None, there's none. Petralona Man is even farther removed from modern humans than something as basal as Ardipithecus ramidus, and represents only one branch of the hominin family tree. There's no controversy, so what "Greece High Definition" is doing is spreading pure bullshit to further their racist, white supremacist agenda. —  Ɖøn Ĵuan  Harass  18:34, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, I wanted to look further at this site to see if they have a mostly-fair historical perspective or weird hagiographies are their bag, but they shutdown on detecting adblock, so they're automatically wrong and bad. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:09, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No, there hasn't been any controversy in Evolution for the past century. It's pretty solid. Fiddleit (talk) 21:44, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Looks like TRACS has a newly accredited member
https://www.cgsot.edu

California Graduate School of Theology has received full national accreditation. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 16:05, 10 December 2018 (UTC) "The study of theology, as it stands in Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on no principles; it proceeds by no authorities; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing; and it admits of no conclusion. Not anything can be studied as a science, without our being in possession of the principles upon which it is founded; and as this is the case with Christian theology, it is therefore the study of nothing." --Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason Phantom666 (talk) 15:08, 11 December 2018 (UTC)Phantom666

Proof of there not being a self?
https://medium.com/dharma-talk/does-the-self-exist-22a2c3c847bb

It seems like the main argument is that because we apparently lack control over certain faculties of our being that there is no self, otherwise we would have control over it. At best I think this just argues there is no free will, not a non self.Machina (talk) 02:11, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I know I am not Machina or the authors of the article - therefore the article is wrong. Anna Livia (talk) 10:37, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you sure about that?Machina (talk) 19:51, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't suppose so, I knows so. Anna Livia (talk) 13:22, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Lookin for foos and foos. Sorry, that's onomatopoea or a strange point, foos oughta back it up. somebody find foos.  No foose?  Somebody find foos Gol Sarnitt (talk) 08:07, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * All that is proved is that 'the world' is more complex than 'the theory' (otherwise bees could not fly). Anna Livia (talk) 13:22, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, deep breath. The self can be defined as an entity.  You are yourself, I am myself.  Let's play back to knowing that I am not Machina or Anna Livia or the author of the article.  This, I know.  I am not physically or supernaturally connected to any of these other entities in a meaningful way to this conversation.  So, I am happy to define myself, but I am also confined to that definition (physically separated and not supernaturally connected).  I think the point this article drives home is, what is it about ourselves from which we are physically separated?  I think the article presupposes a soul or spirit, which is not great, but it's worth thinking about, because as much as I'd like to say I'm a real grouch in the morning until I've had a cup of coffee, am I the grouch or is the non-caffeinated me the grouch?  And if it's a chemical response, at what point do we actively gain or lose self by controlling the chemicals that pump through our brains?  It reads like new-age trash, and it probably has to these days Gol Sarnitt (talk) 08:45, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I mean, they talk about Karma as if it's an active force. First off, it's not real, second, Karma doesn't affect you until your next life.  All these dipshits saying Karma is the Golden Rule + the Secret have to realize that every time they stomp a spider or eat a chicken wing, they are actively denying a creature's chance to build karma.  Every spider you vacuum up is a soul that could potentially become a human, and you've denied it the proper chance at Karma.  I'm honestly so sick of people talking about Karma like it's not religious doctrine, like they've been there.  If you're Abrahamic, it's blasphemy.  If you're agnostic, you can name your magic spells whatever you want.  If you're Hindu or Buddhist and take it seriously, hell, I'm willing to talk to you about it.  But it's the modern era, believe whatever you want, I guess!  Don't point me to your holy book if you're not gonna read it, though.  Sorry, I was trying to save that, but I couldn't.Gol Sarnitt (talk) 10:05, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Well it might be that the article does prove that free will isn't a thing. Unfortunately that's it. She doesn't really prove a "non self". Meditation affects the part of the brain that gives us a sense of "boundaries" I.e. the body is separate from the surroundings, which is true in a sense. So if she is using meditation as evidence it falls short since the sense we speak of can apply to either way, a sense of self and "no self". In regards to your remark about the grouch it would be both. Though she made reference to a "golden pond" so I don't know how seriously to take her.Machina (talk) 00:34, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with all of that. And I do discount free will as a construct, and I do discount the self as also a construct.  But I don't disbelieve (in a meaningful way) in constructs, nor do I find them intrinsically useless or harmful.  My frustration comes from the billing claiming insight into a non-self, and the content being painfully spiritual.  Being said, how easy is it to say "I personally know the self is not an existent thing, exactly?"  Pretty easy, I find myself saying that a lot.  I mean, if this piece was only about shedding the answers that religion gives to our very human questions, no foul.  And it's relatable, and it's brave of anyone to say "self discovery is the priority over traditional explanations of the self, and I will do that now."  But, I don't like it much.  I hope it abets in a deconstructive view of the self for somebody.  But it also posits a specific, sustainable, implicitly more correct reconstructive view of how to see the self.  Again, it's an opinion piece, but I don't like it much.  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:53, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately since questions of the self come down to a "perception" of either self or no self, it doesn't seem like we will get a satisfactory answer. I think there is a "seperateness" even though I don't have a words to put to that idea.Machina (talk) 21:55, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

As a child I was taught to at least respect the title of President, even if you don't like the guy in office.
I still hold to that but Trump is a disgrace to the title of President and the office. I respect the office but not the guy in it. I tried to give a benefit of a doubt, I was also taught that but Trump used that up. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:35, 29 December 2018 (UTC)


 * As a child and young adult, the president was always careful to not explicitly engage in partisan hackery. I never thought Bush should have won over Gore, but I was in middle school and you should have heard what Midwest middle school kids were saying.  Clinton was the devil and Gore was a robot, and it was all literal.   I'd still find it...  easier to live out Trump's term.  But maybe it's the time to prosecute, I mean, we're supposed to have all the protocols in place to replace a criminal president.  The guy is in violation of the emoluments clause, we've known this since day one.  I mean, what better time to try our system of checks and balances out?  Nobody really thinks he's in charge of anything anyway.  If it actually gets worse, at least we can claim we did it because we are a nation of laws. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 09:24, 29 December 2018 (UTC)


 * For me it isn't about whether or not we should respect the President. It's about trusting the President. And you never should. From at least the Kennedy administration, the Presidency has shown a disturbing trend towards authoritarianism and erosion of checks and balances. The President now determines not only our nation's policies but what Congress and the people should know about them. Watergate? Fuck off with that. What about the many governments the CIA overthrew, or the FBI's secret war against the Civil Rights Movement, or the web of covert and illegal acts that makes up the Iran-Contra affair? Or all the shit that Bush and Obama got up to? For that matter, what about American involvement in the Vietnam War, which (openly) began with a series of bald-faced lies told by Lyndon Johnson and his administration and killed tens of thousands of Americans? And yet pubic discourse about the presidency is limited to "respectability." That's what makes me fear for the future of my beloved country. The American people are perfectly willing to accept a Commander-in-Chief who does terrible shit as long as he's likable and has an explanation for how it technically wasn't his fault. Trump's a fucking idiot, but I guarantee that when historians look back on this era, they'll find that the most damaging things he did weren't even unusual. All Trump's erratic stupidity does is make the rot of the executive branch clearer to see. But we don't want to think about that. We don't want to think that our leaders might be untrustworthy, or that our government might not be worthy of the ideals it preaches. As long as our president looks and acts the way we want him to, we'll just accept his shady dealings. Oh, we'll feign outrage when they're revealed but we'll almost always lose interest when the next news story comes on. The government determines everything, and it's always benign, so why bother paying attention to it? Criticism is incompatible with patriotism. This is America, after all. It's our country, right or wrong. 10:43, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * My roommate is tryin to pull a triple shift, I stayed up to bug him when he got home so he wouldn't turn a nap into a human's night sleep. Basically, I'm pretty sleep deprived at this point, so bear with me. You're not wrong, and you're sayin things I'd like to say, but I say just because our history sucks doesn't mean we can't/shouldn't pin this guy on an overt technicality.  It's about time we pin one of them, right?  Not tryna be subversive, but if we don't take action against this current criminal president, what is going to keep the slime from creepin up?  I mean, it takes a very strange personality to both want to and be able/willing to climb to the top of government. I'm sure they all have things to hide.  After the Kavanaugh circus, I think it's our duty to remind the political elite they weren't born with it. I mean, I think that's how Trump got elected in the first place, so it's maybe a misguided notion, but we're living with capitalist royalty generally in charge. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 12:18, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Duce you got a patent on the formula for apathy, it goes like; "all Presidents do bad shit, are liars and hypocrites, but the american people are idiots, we go along with it, so why bother trying to change anything, don't complain, be cool and just ignore it". 24.91.159.57 (talk)
 * It's more like is cynical of whether knocking the current idiot off his throne will change anything overall. I'm pretty much the same way, if not further disillusioned. I never understood why I'm supposed to blindly give respect and loyalty to some people while others are supposed to earn it. I mean fuck that shit, I don't even have respect and loyalty for the country as a whole, let alone the asshat leading it.  15:13, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * True no job should get respect as an automatic perk, and no country should be worhsipped blindly. 24.91.159.57 (talk)


 * I’m not arguing for apathy at all. Apathy is part of the problem. I’m saying that the executive shouldn’t be blindly trusted, and that this situation won’t change until people truly want it to. 17:22, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

That's a terrible lesson for americans
We fought our stupid damn revolution over how meaningless titles warrant no respect. We'd all be 300% better off if everyone treated the presidency as just another job, one this shitbag is bad at. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 02:10, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree about respecting the title and office. The office and title is supposed to show leadership and representation of the country. I do agree that Trump is a total shit bag. My point is that Trump is abusing the office and title for his own purposes, he is supposed to use the job for the interests of the American people. How is someone supposed to lead the country when all they do is act like a 1st grade child.


 * I do respect your right to speak your mind. I disagree but life goes on. 😆😆 They took my teeth --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 03:08, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, whatever, you can respect or disrespect my opinion as you like, but teaching children respect for power because it's power makes for adults who can't stand on their own principles. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 03:22, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * We won't see eye to eye on the what I originally said. I know we can agree that Trump is an incompetent jackal. Sad that he is disrespectful to the constitution and Bill of Rights. It is also sad that Trump is doing a disservice to the people who he is supposed to lead. This has to be one of the biggest embarrassments in United States history. I rather have Obama back in office and I didn't even like the guy. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 04:13, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , if you simply accept someone's capability or give them respect based on their title, then that is credentialism (an excessive reliance on credentials), and it's fallacious. One should respect someone because of what they can do with or without the backing of credentials. If you don't get it, read the Lou Reed quote that I added on the credentialism page. Bongolian (talk) 04:59, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

That was not what I exactly meant. I meant being President and holding the job is supposed to show leadership. I admit that I have a hard time explaining what I mean. Trump fails to show leadership and fails at representing the people. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 13:15, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

everyone deserves respect
not an american, but heres my take on things anyways.

ive always tried to give people respect from the outset. i dont like the idea that respect should be earned. it should be assumed unless you've reason to think other wise. if i bump into a complete stranger in the street, i give them the same respect i would expect to receive. they do not have to earn it - there would be no time and no time to earn there respect. respect here means you not shouting at each other to get fuck out your way, its one of you giving way and the other giving thanks for giving space. its done in seconds.

if i am at work and someone new starts - they get the respect of assuming that they have every right to be in that job - they've gone through interviews, their credentials and experience were enough to get the position. you might temper it with the knowledge that they may need a little time to find their feet, but you dont question their abilities until after you seen what their work is like.

if i go to a dr, i assume they know what they are doing, that that they have met some minimum standard. second opinions are not sought unless you have reason to doubt their judgement.

it is the same with any business or institution. when you deal with one you assume they are are up to the task that is required - delivery on time, quality as expected, that they dont rip you off. if they do, you assume an unfortunate mistake before incompetant crooks. how they deal with problems when respect might lost.

then you get government institutions. police. tax office. council. parliament. courts. from front line services you interact with through to prime minister or, as in the stated case, president. you need to respect these things. you need to respect the police, you need to know they are at the very least trying their best. if you dont trust them they cant do their job. tax office, the council, courts - the same. if you dont respect them, that you think they incompetent or corrupt, they cannot function. these things only work if we give them enough credit, enough respect that we can leave them to get on with things, that we can cooperate with them as required, able rectify problems. if you refuse to talk to the police, the courts, take every minor error in your taxes as a personal slight or proof of corruption, every interaction is a fight, it all grinds to halt, they start to look at you as a crook, have something to hide. it makes it harder for everyone.

obviously, this respect can lost. police shooting innocents, wrongful convictions, repeated incompetence, major problems of all kinds and how they are dealt with, but even then you have to try and assume they doing there best for the most part, not jump to conclusions. but once its gone, you need a hell of a lot to get it back.

you should respect your government. even if you didnt vote for them, you should assume that they want the best for us even if you disagree on how to achieve it. give em a chance, maybe they prove you wrong.

the problem with this approach is that you just cannot respect your government - trumps administration for you yanks, the tories in the uk for me - because at no point along the line from campaigning to elected office - has anyone behaved with any integrity, has anyone looked like they want whats best for us, have shown us any respect. trump and his fellow republicans or may and her tories have lied and exaggerated, put self interest ahead of their countries, stirring up vitriol and animosity throughout all of society treated us with utter contempt. we should give these people some modicum of respect, but it was lost long ago. with trump, it should have been lost long before he got to office. now hes there hes shredded any hint of respect for his office, and working very hard to shred any hint of respect for your entire political system aided and abetted by all those in congress. why respect the office when those in it dont respect it and dont respect you?

@rationalzombie - you say you dont respect the man but respect the office - what do you do when the man has so thoroughly destroyed that office that it will take more than a change of administration to fix? when the lack of respect is not limited to those in the power but to their supporters too, to pretty much everyone, i dont see a solution. its so easy to sow dissent, to demonise, to set us at each others throats, to just break things, to deny each of us respect. this is what the brexiters and the trumps of this world do. they break things. the easiest thing in the world. but they offer no solutions. they build nothing.

dont know where i'm going with this. treat each other with more respect? its trite but its all i got. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:08, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that would be the best way to explain to it. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 13:17, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * In my experience there's a difference between what you describe when you encounter a stranger, and respect. When I encounter a stranger I tend to behave politely, altruistically, and courteously. I do not however, view that as respect. Respect is something you give to someone based on how impressed you are with their behavior or skills, not something freely given to everyone and anyone. Or so my experience has been. 14:57, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * thats just one aspect of respect. due regard and consideration is another and relevent to the stranger example. it a different definition but not unrelated if it effects how you interact with people. probably a huge generalisation, ive found folk a make a big deal of people needing to earn their respect in situations where it isnt required - they can seem arrogant. we have to earn theirs but they dont have to earn ours. i am less in interested the kind of respect that means you've been impressed by something or other - its generally not mentioned unless you are impressed by something. the other kind, due care and consideration kind, where you respect people differing opinions, their struggles, their choices, their rights, through to respecting an office of some kind and those within - that they have a job to do, have considerations that you may not be aware, that they are not infallible, that they have constraints and rules, red tape, that they are maliciously trying to fuck you over. how much respect or deference you show going to depend the situation and you should expect in return. even our elected representatives should expect this from us, to recognise they are not generally evil people, are trying their best to do the right thing. sadly politics is polarised, society is polarised. respect doesnt win elections and it doesnt win arguments on twitter. people demand respect but dont want to give any so there is no respect anywhere. how do we fix that? AMassiveGay (talk) 18:01, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I found that summary to be incredibly touching. I would say that the best way to break down barriers is to show people you care about their problems and listen to their opinions, come hell or high water.  Which isn't easy.  MirrorIrorriM (talk) 20:39, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

So what is everyone here doing this New Years Eve (NYE)???

 * I'm currently starting some serious shit on YouTube and Twitter that may seriously backfire on me. A storm is brewing hehe...Mí má kȍhà hńg gǀȕì ō ǁȁhìn-ā ō hȁ ō gǀè gù ǀxūúnnu. (talk) 02:20, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * What shit, and how do I stoke the fire? — Ɖøn Ĵuan   Harass  02:28, 30 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm making the claim that a very big organization is connected to a dark web cult. When the fire is right I'll enlist you guys as my official fire stokers. Mí má kȍhà hńg gǀȕì ō ǁȁhìn-ā ō hȁ ō gǀè gù ǀxūúnnu. (talk) 03:21, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Wasting my life away on the internet as usual. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 03:23, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Mmm.... yesterday, I had to euthanize my gout-ridden dear parakeet and my sister just so happened to catch stomach flu so my New Year's Eve might not be entirely jovial, have to recover from such a double-punch to my guts. 04:03, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait, what? How in the fuck do you euthanase a parakeet? -- MtD Bogan   04:45, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know the details but what they did was calm the bird in a gas, make her unconscious, then they make an injection that will kill her. Sigh, the attitude is not helping my mood. 07:45, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah. Living in Australia I have a backyard full of parakeets and other psittaciformes. Never had cause to gas one, normally a timely collision with the kitchen window does the trick. Happy New Year and condolences on the loss of your beloved pet. -- MtD Bogan   08:11, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * If last year is anything to go by I'll get scaffolder-on-his-stag-night drunk, end up in a fight with a kangaroo and then sleep it all off in the slot. -- MtD Bogan   04:23, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll probably either be studying or spending time with my family. RoninMacbeth (talk) 04:32, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll be sleeping on NYE's eve, other than that, waste time on the Internet as usual. — Ɖøn Ĵuan   Harass  13:07, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll do what I always do. Go to bed early, then get woken up by the neighbour reenacting El Alamein. I really don't know why I bother going to bed before midnight... Avida Dollarsher again 13:44, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll be having a plate of spaghetti and a small can of beer. I'll watch the fireworks go off at Taipei 101 on the telly at midnight and go to bed soon afterwards. Mind you, 3 years ago at Chinese New Year, I was drinking whiskey in a bar at 3 o'clock in the afternoon. Next thing I knew, it was 7 hours later and I'd just woken up in a vegetable garden without my shoes or my glasses. Spud (talk)
 * The Taipei 101 is one of my favorite pieces of architecture. Good for you, mate!
 * My New Year's Eve activities shall consist of eating, sleeping, drinking, urinating, defecating, reading and learning. Basically, the usual stuff. Nerd (talk) 15:29, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Wasting my life on the computer reading and posting on forums. slowly wasting away until I am a ghost. Tabula Rasa (talk) 18:14, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Staring at my PC screen playing World of Warcraft and staring at the virtual fireworks over Stormwind like I do every year because I am somewhat life deprived. Also Doctor Who and it's annual holiday episode, which is New Years themed instead of the usual Christmas gag-- guess London isn't that popular a place to be after the six or so holiday invasions so far in the new series. This year, let's catch 'em while they're drunk, I guess... Kencolt (talk) 19:16, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Well that is as good a new year as any I guess. I have a zillion relatives, who haven't yet all fucked off back to wherever they normally live yet. Christmas brings them all out of their hibernation holes. The only reason it isn't hell on Earth is that I managed to avoid seeing the Grumps yet. 20:58, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * For me, I'm gonna have my eyes glued on NASA Channel to watch coverage of the Ultima Thule flyby half an hour after midnight. Granted, that is, that the government shutdown doesn't interfere with their media activities...  You Won't BELIEVE What Astronomers Found In This Neutron Star!  - Number Four WILL Shock You!  15:14, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

New Years resolutions
Anyone going to bother with any? I've tried them before and they normally go out the window by February. --RWRW (talk) 21:09, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm taking up jogging. I must be an idiot. Avida Dollarsher again 22:13, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I decided that my New Years resolution will be to drink more. This will work very well because when I fail to keep it, I will end up drinking less... 22:48, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I will finally manage to consume an alcoholic beverage. That I actually like. On New Years. 03:05, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * My resolution is to earn a college degree. Maybe get another tattoo. Dem evul atheist liberal communist with new world order tooook me jurb --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 03:15, 31 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Back in, hmm... around 2002, I guess, I resolved to never make another New Year's Resolution eve again because I never seemed to be able to follow through with any of the fucking things. Well, that's the one I have kept solidly. Kencolt (talk) 08:23, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Pathetic. All of you. -- MtD Bogan   21:17, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Why not have NYR that you actually enjoy doing/things you would do anyway (but just do more) - eg improving the wikiverse in general and RW in particular? Anna Livia (talk) 19:55, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a good card. Fiddleit (talk) 20:25, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Who writes sentences across both pages!?! How am I supposed to read this? pet peeves, auld lang syne, I'm not really mad. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:40, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Rethinking the Right
In other words, what is modern conservatism in America? Is there a general template? Are there clear boundaries? Check out these remarks by a historian. Nerd (talk) 16:34, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I have opinions. This is perhaps predictable of me.
 * But Ameropublicanism, which is loosely where the conservative "brand" lies is not, in a classical sense, conservative. There's a bit of social conservatism on the religious wingnut side, but overwhelmingly, an explicit ideology built on judicious, slow, and restricted progress doesn't describe them at all.  Instead, it's a garbage heap of ideologies, mostly constructed to excuse previous ideological failures.  Even as far back as the 1980s concepts like the Laffer curve were constructed whole cloth, to come up with another way of handing money to the rich after Nixon's nation-wide wage freeze did terrible damage.  The cycle accelerated like crazy, until we got the complete reality disconnect that exists today in the form of the Trump/Infowars/Facebook group gestalt.
 * Not to say everything about modern "conservatism" is an endless loop of self justification. There's a source.  There's a fascist, or maybe more fairly merely hyper-authoritarian, hyper-xenophobic undercurrent.  This manifests in an obsession with police, immigration, Islam existing, military, or anything else that can be reconstructed into a war, where there's an outside other attacking.  The fact that probably almost half of those consumed by the movement would probably be the evil enemy who must be utterly destroyed by another part doesn't matter somehow.
 * And that's where we are. So there's not a template, no set of beliefs that defines them.  Only the hostile reaction and the infinite pattern of digging further when shown to be wrong.  If you want a question to ask to determine if someone is "conservative" in america, the simplest single question filter is "Are we under subversive attack by enemies who seek to undermine everything we stand for?" ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:40, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Woof, good question. So who is the subversive agent? Could be trolls, it's a new culture ands our politicians can't read that specific room.  No country has a claim to trolls.  But if we've experienced and understood trolling, the intent is contrarian and has its own point.  I'd rather redefine trolling as having no intent as a point, but I can't because I've seen plenty of people trolled.  And that's what the right really digs on, we ought to let it flourish, because the left is better at it.  And the right's best excuse is "it's trolls, I was trolled back, my trolling was justified" which is, lemme get my dictionary out here, UNTENABLE.  Most of the right's reasoning is UNTENABLE, which strangely coincides with trolling. If you can't bring about a tenable solution, you are not necessarily trolling, but you are not solving anything amidst a group of people who are asking you for help in a solution.  Untenable solutions as a joke are fine, untenable solutions as your job is not funny.  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 06:02, 6 January 2019 (UTC)


 * An interesting question, . My answer is somewhat reminiscent of ikanreed’s, but with a different perspective.


 * First, I assume that by ”modern conservatism in America,” you are referring to the quite large slice of the US populace, intellectuals, politicians and various other movers and shakers who refer to themselves as “conservative”.


 * Basically, I see this broad spectrum of self-professed “conservatives” comprising several, distinct strains that were first brought together during the Cold War by their anti communism, which led them to oppose various societal developments, such as the post-WWII “Keynesian” economics and the welfare state, as well as they saw as the erosion of family values and the “traditional” roles of religion, race and gender as they conceived them. I consider the forming of this coalition to be a phenomenon, as the “free market fundamentalists”, the hardline, authoritarian, nationalist conspiracy theorists and the religious fundamentalists originally had very little in common.


 * However, this “marriage of convenience” has since led to a readily odd case of “political syncretism”, resulting in such curious phenomena as the prosperity gospel and the idea that you want “selectively small government”, i.e. one that combines a huge surveillance, law enforcement and military establishment, while subsidising corporations with doing as little as possible to keep its ordinary citizens alive, healthy, educated and employed.


 * So, if I was to untangle this US “conservative” mishmash, I would point to these three main strains:
 * Beltway libertarianism/vulgar libertarianism/objectivism and especially the influence of and  theory (I’d really recommend  2017 book on the latter topic: Democracy in Chains).
 * Religious fundamentalism.
 * Conspiracy theory and populism/anti-elitism.
 * These three strains coalesced into one “conservative movement”, but their internal differences makes this alliance somewhat precarious, especially considering that the first strain is actually composed of the type of (post)modern business and academic elites that the two other strains tend to despise. One other way of presenting this trinity would be by personalising each strain as, respectively, Charles Koch, Pat Robertson and Alex Jones. ScepticWombat (talk) 11:22, 6 January 2019 (UTC)


 * If I were to add a fourth strain/person, it would be “US hegemonism”/Donald Rumsfeld. ScepticWombat (talk) 11:31, 6 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Btw, I hadn’t seen the video before adding my comments, so the similarity between my three (or four) strains version and the Venn diagram in the video is not because I’ve simply reworked Professor Burns’ model. ScepticWombat (talk) 12:44, 6 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Yours is the best answer so far, well done! Professor Burns also wrote an interesting article titled "What Was Conservatism?"Nerd (talk) 15:23, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

2019 Predictions
It's 5:00 on the 31st where I live. What predictions do you guys have for this site in the coming year? Mine is that we will see the beginnings of HCM-level edit wars over the election season. RoninMacbeth (talk) 01:01, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I must say I agree with you, . Nerd (talk) 02:17, 1 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Well the US Stratgic Command kicked things off by new year tweeting a video of a nuke and saying they were "ready to drop the big one" so I can imagine 2019 will be just as fucked as 2018 was. 01:22, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Trolls will step up their attempts to whitewash hot button articles, vandalize the site, and generally wish us all death/rape/maiming/whatever. 01:28, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I like that attitude. Always drilling. Always ready. Nerd (talk) 02:17, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Hey, folks, The Economist has some interesting predictions here. Nerd (talk) 02:17, 1 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I believe that in 2019, the home will finally be heated and cooled by a single futuristic food refrigeration device, while those damnable caveman-esque atrocities we call windows will be done away with in favor of a broader interior. This is the era of "plastics" after all!  Finally, a melding of art and science, once only dreamed of as a mere fantastic fever dream, on the cusp of a wonderland for all thanks to infinite innovation!  HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL!!!  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 06:01, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I wrote that out a day before I posted it. Thanks, Nerd, for giving me the chance to post off topi.  Muahahahahaha!  Damn, can't give me a chance to not laugh maniacally after anything I say.  Anyway, I've crawled home and watched it.  It is extremely interesting.  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 06:31, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * According to some Fundagelicals, 2019 is Rapture time and all Good Christians will be abducted to be brainwashed by God, blah, blah. Panzerfaust (talk) 19:47, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * They said that about every year since 2012. It's a bit meaningless now. 11:25, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Speaking of trolls making threats
A big name in the EAS Community has made vulgar threats against someone. I made a video expressing my outrage. If the scenario maker EAS Freak watches, he will probably get mad at me. Oh well. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 02:09, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Just because Don read you the receipt wrong, you're gonna act this way. Is this your way of getting out of your responsibilities, is this the way you act?! — Ɖøn Ĵuan   Harass  19:52, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You do not get how the EAS Community works. It is not some kind of attempt to get out of responsibility. When someone goes on a war path, they do everything in their power to cause harm. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 14:57, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You're going to pay it, regardless of what you mistakenly thought the original price was. — Ɖøn Ĵuan   Harass  15:49, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Speaking of New Year tweets
'''[https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1080088373451206656 HAPPY NEW YEAR TO EVERYONE, INCLUDING THE HATERS AND THE FAKE NEWS MEDIA! 2019 WILL BE A FANTASTIC YEAR FOR THOSE NOT SUFFERING FROM TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME. JUST CALM DOWN AND ENJOY THE RIDE, GREAT THINGS ARE HAPPENING FOR OUR COUNTRY!]''' — @realDonaldTrump 1:08 PM - 1 Jan 2019

Caps lock key stuck yo? 13:31, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "JUST CALM DOWN AND ENJOY THE RIDE" sounds kinda like a threat to me. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 16:58, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "JUST CALM DOWN AND ENJOY THE RIDE" sounds a little rapey. Millennium Scallion (talk) 14:24, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Enough of the "Whale Fucking is non-consensual" bullshit. A Humpback Whale weighs 70,000 pounds, is fifty feet long, can dive more than a quarter mile and can crush ships with a single swipe of its tail. If a human manages to fuck one, you damn well better believe it's consensual. - McAfee for President 2020. 15:13, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hahaha, this is pretty good. It's absurdist, takes a non-stance on rape, but broadsides the issue.  It's like saying the Illuminati deserve to control our lives if nobody in the Illuminati has ever snitched, fucked up, or been caught.  Illuminati has my vote, they're clearly more capable than our leaders.  Put the example in front of me and I'll reconsider my statement.  I just hope they didn't catch too much heat for this joke, partly because I bet that was the intention, but mostly because it's Twitter, you can go there and let me know what happened.  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 08:19, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Rationalwiki?
This website was started to be the opposite of Conservapedia right? That isn't the basis of any kind of rationality. Why not be honest and call yourselves "Liberalwiki"? But then, I suppose, dishonesty, delusion, and self-righteousness are some of the defining characteristics of liberals. Carry on! 82.132.214.23 (talk) 12:49, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Essay:I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki — Ɖøn Ĵuan   Harass  12:59, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Where in that essay is my point addressed? This website is written from a liberal starting point, not a rational one. You assclowns don't even try to be rational, i.e. starting from data. You start from "everyone and all behaviours are equal", appending the fashionable Judeo-Bolshevik "except whites and christians because they're racist and stupid" of course. An essay pointing out how it's hard to be rational is irrelevant, you don't even try to be rational. 82.132.214.23 (talk) 13:04, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Just because someone is white and or Christian doesn't mean that they aren't given due consideration as people, but it doesn't mean other people's issues are any less important than one facing White Anglo-Saxon Protestant Males (or WASPS for short). — Ɖøn Ĵuan   Harass  13:09, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, you'll treat them as vastly more important, especially those facing God's chosen. I'm sure their massive overrepresentation in areas where it's possible to brainwash gullible fools en masse is nothing more that a coincidence. 82.132.214.23 (talk) 13:31, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Now, one of two things has happened. One, you didn't read the entire essay and merely skimmed it. Two, you didn't read the essay at all. I know these are the possibilities due to the fact that I've read the essay, and there is in fact at least one section directed at this current topic. The section "It's too liberal" under examples comes to mind immediately. on the subject of Theists, see "It's too atheist". Please re-read the essay, thank you. 14:16, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * P.S. The "Judeo-Bolshevik" Thing is poorly concealed antisemitism and red-baiting, don't continue to use it if you want to be taken seriously. 14:19, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I read it and the section addresses nothing and merely contains strawman role playing of people making this objection. 109.144.214.53 (talk) 14:40, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Saying "antisemitism" doesn't constitute a refutation. It just means "you're not allowed to criticise Jews" (although of course you'll make the wild exaggeration of characterising it as mindless irrational hatred, since it's impossible to refute me, so you'll have to resort to smearing your opponent with absurd accusations). Which is ironic in this context, and supports what I'm saying, as if the obvious needed any support. 109.144.214.53 (talk) 14:35, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * By using the slur of "Judeo-Bolsheviks", you have engaged in the fallacy of poisoning the well, so by all rights you are the one unable to refute our arguments, not the other way around. — Ɖøn Ĵuan   Harass  14:40, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Nope, that's not an association or a smear. That's literally the root of what's going on. 109.144.214.53 (talk) 14:42, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * So, what you're saying is we have negative stances on certain issues because we are Jewish Communists out to poison people to the Truth? 14:49, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you have a reading comprehension problem, perhaps you're a pathological liar. I don't know. What I said was it's due to "their massive overrepresentation in areas where it's possible to brainwash gullible fools en masse". Whether you're Jewish or a gullible fool I've no idea. 109.144.214.53 (talk) 14:57, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Not capable of acting like an adult when trying to engage in "constructive" dialog? It's okay if you act like a dithering fool, you clearly haven't matured much past the age of 13, if you're going to start shit like this. Inverse Godwin's Law, perhaps? I pity you. — Ɖøn Ĵuan   Harass  15:47, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

IP - please indicate which flavour of 'Liberalism' you are complaining about (and one can be a liberal (UK) Conservative, Communist or any other grouping). Antisemitism does not mean you are not allowed to criticise Jews, or particular aspects of their faith/world view, or the policies of Israel. And you have obviously not come across this wiki. Also bear in mind that RW users may have a wider range of worldviews/belief systems than they display on RW itself, but which they choose not to discuss - not because they are afraid of other participants and their activities but because they wish to engage in more interesting things (such as hair-splitting with people like you, avoiding viewpoint-traps, and (to paraphrase) 'running around and increasing knowledge.'

And with your last remark - you have fallen foul of 'The first derivative of Godwin's Law' (bring in one of the usual hate-figure suspects unnecessarily into the argument, and you have automatically lost.) Anna Livia (talk) 15:10, 2 January 2019 (UTC)


 * You also stated and I quote, "This website is written from a liberal starting point, not a rational one. You assclowns don't even try to be rational, i.e. starting from data. You start from 'everyone and all behaviours are equal', appending the fashionable Judeo-Bolshevik 'except whites and christians because they're racist and stupid'" When I pointed out how that came across and recommended that you not use certain words given their conspiratorial indications, which you have no proof for and are thus, as said, are Poisoning the well. You replying with, among other things "Saying "antisemitism" doesn't constitute a refutation. It just means "you're not allowed to criticise Jews" (although of course you'll make the wild exaggeration of characterising it as mindless irrational hatred, since it's impossible to refute me, so you'll have to resort to smearing your opponent with absurd accusations", which Don Juan pointed out was fallacious, to which you replied "Nope, that's not an association or a smear. That's literally the root of what's going on." I then summerized the conversation via a very blunt inquiry and you now appear to be backpedaling.  15:12, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * P.S. The quote "I read it and the section addresses nothing and merely contains strawman role playing of people making this objection." in response to my first post indicates that you're implying that the examples are not real posts that we as a community have encountered, which is such a blatantly dishonest assertion to make without proof that I would be quite justified cutting the conversation off right here and now were I so inclined, though I am not so inclined. 15:12, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I defined what kind of liberalism right at the start. I'll copy paste it in a few times, maybe if you read it over and over again it will somehow be processed by your brain and we can continue the rational discussion.
 * Where in that essay is my point addressed? This website is written from a liberal starting point, not a rational one. You assclowns don't even try to be rational, i.e. starting from data. You start from "everyone and all behaviours are equal", appending the fashionable Judeo-Bolshevik "except whites and christians because they're racist and stupid" of course. An essay pointing out how it's hard to be rational is irrelevant, you don't even try to be rational.
 * Shall I post it again? 109.144.214.53 (talk) 15:18, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Your inability or unwillingness to unpack that statement is something of a problem. Because of that lack of explanation, we are at something of an impasse, unable to understand each other clearly. Personally from my view it appears that you are claiming that we are hysterical far-left "liberals" who are also these "...Judeo-Bolshevik..." bogymen, which honestly is complete and utter bullcrap. If that isn't an accurate summery of your beliefs then you need to explain them more clearly, not assert them repeatedly. 15:32, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the IP is incapable of forming coherent thoughts, and so must act like a fucking child in order to compensate for this mental deficit? — Ɖøn Ĵuan   Harass  15:47, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The main claim is that you argue from an egalitarian starting point, rather than data. Therefore you have a liberal rather than rational POV. I think this is pretty obvious, but it's easier to distract attention from that by flipping out over the anti-White anti-Christian Judeo-Bolshevik caveat. 109.144.221.247 (talk) 16:42, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, as if my framing wasn't blatant enough, the word "liberal" in this context is somewhat misleading. This is because the essay uses the U.S. definition of "liberal", which is a generic catchall for "everything to the left of the GOP", which given the steady rightward shift of the GOP means a massive chunk of the political spectrum. To then add the phrases "Judeo-Bolshevik" and "anti-white" (the second of which is a form of loaded language used predominately by far-right white-supremacists as a dogwhistle for "not racist, hate on them") muddies the waters further, such that we are still stuck on defining terms. Thus your first claim must wait, no matter how much you may wish to jump past defining terms to it. 17:15, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * My personal opinion is that invoking the phrase "JudeoBolshevik" is nazi enough to warrant banning. I'm a zero nazi kind of person.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:23, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I've defined what I mean by liberal (egalitarian regarding races and behaviours) over and over. It doesn't matter what the thousands of other definitions are, because that was the definition I used, when I made my point. But I guess you don't want to look into my point, because you're a disingenuous piece of shit, so you just stonewall by pretending to be confused about my definition, despite me repeating it over and over, even literally copy pasting it again. Rationalwiki! 109.144.221.247 (talk) 17:47, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * At least for me that is the problem. If we couldn't understand what you wrote the first time, then why would we understand it a second time? Tabula Rasa (talk) 17:51, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That would be my point exactly. BoN, it is rather disrespectful, not to mention just plain rude, of you to assume that I'm being dishonest about my lack of understanding. You made a statement who's plain reading I summed up here, you then claimed that that wasn't what you meant, yet failed to clarify beyond mere repetition of the original statement. It seems a bit disrespectful for you to expect us to read your mind. 17:58, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You made a fake strawman interpretation which I corrected. You're ignoring that and repeating the same twaddle. Your entire approach here is LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU. You're a liar. Rationalwiki! 82.132.237.148 (talk) 19:45, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You corrected nothing. You repeated a claim without clarification after rejecting another person's summery, which means jack fucking shit. You insistence on abusing others while ignoring requests to clarify your own position, which let's be honest isn't that fucking hard, has resulted in this thread being collapsed and ending. Goodbye. 19:52, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

The moment "Judeo-Bolshevik" came into this was the moment that I knew there wasn't any point engaging with this moron. 19:55, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Ah, if it isn't our old friend
The Dark Master 2, how's it going, buddy? Still as much of a shithead as ever, I see. — Ɖøn Ĵuan   Harass  15:54, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * this BoN is likely TDM2, and while it is possible that this BoN is a well, I'm unsure, given their style of rhetoric is slightly different. Of course TDM2 could merely have altered the style on one sock, but I find that unlikely given his previous history of socking. (He kind of sucks at hiding his bias and style.) 16:01, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * in either case the correct response would have been to not feed the troll. there is literally nothing here that required any level of engagement. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:44, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Actually answering the (admittedly really dumb) question
When rationalwiki was founded, liberpedia and liberalpedia were already registered websites and done badly. Also, the opposite of unthinking authoritarian conservatism isn't unthinking authoritarian liberalism. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:47, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Suggestion to the IPs
Can 'he, she, it, ze or they (singular or plural)' please use only one IP or even create a username - as it simplifies things.

And each 'deliberately offensive term unnecessarily applied' and insult to other RW contributors subtracts from the validity of any argument. (Creative linguistics etc is another matter.) Anna Livia (talk) 18:16, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * IP changes are generally not the users choice, their ISP cycles them and they get a new one every so often. The speed of replacement varies depending on provider and location. 20:22, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Troll fail
Unfortunately unidentified visitor your arguments hold no weight because of your gross overuse of generalizations and your gross over-generalizations of groups of diverse people. When I think of FOX NEWS, I see a lot of blatant propaganda, but most certainly not all of it (same goes for some left-leaning news networks). At the same time, I know a very large percentage of FOXNEWS viewers are conservative. None of the previous gives me the right to honestly claim that FOXNEWS is a manipulative house of lies meant to brainwash stupid conservative idiots. That their viewers are unthinking sheeple whose arguments are useless cause all they do is consume Trump aided paranoia and propaganda. Therefore all conservatives, even those who don't watch FOXNEWS are intellectually deficient and of course racist and homophobic and white Nationalists. I doubt you'd find a single user here who would endorse the above (unless it was in a joking fashion or a clear hyper-exaggeration. But you've seen to have done the opposite by throwing out a hate terms like: Liberal-machine Judeo-Blosheviks. All that terms like that tend to do is deligitimise a broad group of ideas/arguments/ideologies from the beginning and take almost the entire focus away from the actual arguments you are actually contesting. And you don't just dismiss people who are actual Judeo-Bolsheviks (like are there more than a handful left in the 21st century anyways?????) but using that term also implies the lumping together of whose ideas show support or concern for a race that has been slaughtered around the world for centuries or even those who show the slightest support for the existence of a Jewish state, like people who aren't even Zionists. I personally agree with the right of a smaller Israel to exist but I am openly critical and horrified by settlements and the weekly murder and pointless deaths of innocent Palestinians. Am I a Judeo-Bolshevik? You also throw people (most on the left) who tirelessly point out the horrors of communism and the endless suffering at the human level but then point out the benefits of generous government assistance (like in Scandinavia) as part of your communist umbrella term, even though you'd have a hard time finding a single communist in Stockholm I mean, how many full out communists do we have here at rationalwiki? I believe in generous government assistence within a modern mixed system...does that make me a Bolshevist? Am I a Judeo-Bolshevists still? You've not only put a hate label on an enormous group of people who often have next to nothing in common (what does a Zionist in Israel have in common with a Green Party advocate in Berlin?) but you also confer nothing but negative qualities to all of these people and dismiss their arguments because of some nefarious agenda behind it. And yet, despite there being hundreds of articles you could refer to and thousands of specific arguments we've made, that you could contest...you haven't brought a single one up. What are you even arguing about? What's your counter view on one of our articles? What's wrong with an argument we've made? This is the behavior of the worst kind of troll. Shoving large people under an umbrella term that cannot possible contain such diverse views, demonizing all such people, avoiding an actual discussion of claims and arguments made cause they're inherently deceitful, throwing around hate terms, insulting people here etc. And of the kind of trolls who come here to get their kicks, get people riled up, start a pointless argument...you aren't even very good at that. I've seen pointless trolls set a conversation on fire through better fallacious arguments and meanness and pettiness...stoking flames and being nastily offensive and a shitty human being a whole lot better than you.. You've failed your case here about us being not rational...and you've failed as a troll. Not a good way to start out 2019. Shabi DOO  19:39, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * And again I can just copy paste in where I already addressed this.
 * The main claim is that you argue from an egalitarian starting point, rather than data. Therefore you have a liberal rather than rational POV. I think this is pretty obvious, but it's easier to distract attention from that by flipping out over the anti-White anti-Christian Judeo-Bolshevik caveat. 82.132.237.148 (talk) 19:48, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You cannot even cough up some specifics when asked. Secondly...liberal and rational point of views are not mutually exclusive. Zheesh. When you start university take a critical-thinking class. If you aren't studying yet or already have, youtube is full of good critical-thinking videos. Fortunately the thread has been toll collapsed for your poor trolling efforts. Better luck trolling in other forums. Shabi  DOO  20:09, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I never was asked. You all just pretended to not understand what I was saying then closed the discussion. I'm not saying they're 100% exclusive, but where they are exclusive, you go with liberal. Do you really not get that? Of course you do, you're playing dumb. You're a disingenuous cunt. 82.132.237.148 (talk) 20:12, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * im not sure what you expect here. your argument is no more than sweeping statements as broad as they are vague as to be entirely useless yet you seem to expect a reasoned response. there is literally nothing here. you frame it in such a way, and with such language, that it seems incredibly disingenuous to claim that it isnt or wasnt intended to be inflammatory. it marks you as a prick not interested in honest debate, or as so fundamentally stupid that debate would be pointless. dftt. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:20, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * @82.132.237.148 This and this, read them. Tabula Rasa (talk) 20:28, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * What a joke this place is. My only comfort is that everybody else on the internet thinks you're a joke too. You ought to be shut down for pushing fake science and defamation. Scum. 82.132.237.148 (talk) 21:32, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Even when prodded twice, you still won't throw examples out there. Also...thanks for calling us cunts. Was very sweet cause we get called a lot of things...and so rarely are we called full out cunts. Since you've clearly discredited us as the vilely detested joke forum by the interweb. I suppose then there's nothing stopping you from fucking off...right? Shabi  DOO  21:43, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "Prodded" meaning you lying about me being asked after relentless stonewalling and feigned misunderstanding? You people actually seem to have some kind of psychotic disorder. Perhaps that's why Oliver Smith (literal psycho) is one of your star editors. 82.132.237.148 (talk) 21:47, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Having a mental illness is not a crime, and I'd appreciate not even the hint of doxxing anyone. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:57, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Defamation is a crime, and Oliver and this shithole are certain to have that point driven home hard at some point in the future. I hope you don't have too many assets. 82.132.237.148 (talk) 22:06, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Death threats are also a crime Mikey, and the U.K. has an extradition treaty with the U.S. Also my state has the death penalty. You really want to play legal chicken with us?  22:13, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * LMAO. Just for this ridiculous attempt to scare me I really think I will. "I was calling him a pedo on the internet and he said he was going to kill me". You're an absolute fucking joke. Fucking hang yourself, seriously. 82.132.237.148 (talk) 22:19, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Michael Coombs: the Nazi wiki Rightpedia you administrated was recently shut down by their web host after receiving legal complaints... You're literally someone who just had their website shut down for libel and harassment, yet RationalWiki are the harassers? lol. Thunder (talk) 22:22, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

For the record I never called you a pedo, though I did call TDM2 a pedo multiple times to illustrate the limits of freedom of speech... So, is that a tacit admission that Combs and TDM2 are one and the same?... You BoN/Combs/whoever can answer after your block is over. 22:30, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Coombs is a self-confessed paedophile who wrote he's sexually attracted to "underage girls". He's 40 years old and said he's sexually attracted to 14-15 year olds. However, he denies the pedophile label and claims anyone who calls him that will be sued for defamation - which is nonsense since Kiwi Farms for past 3 years has a thread calling him a paedophile with 600,000 views, yet he's never done anything about it.Thunder (talk) 23:06, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Nonetheless, I'd imagine (backseat modding alert) the mods prefer no uncited statements to that effect, since "this person is a pedo" is a fairly classic open-and-shut defamation case in most courts. Kiwifarms never suffering consequences for their safe-harbor of legally suspect activity is not good grounds to do it here.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 23:26, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * His article on RationalWiki doesn't call him a paedophile anyway. All it does is quote his disturbing comments; he's written many obscene and terrible things; another was a comment he supports child murder:

What's wrong with murdering innocent children if it's for a good cause? And it is a little bit funny.Thunder (talk) 23:52, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * @82.132.237.148 THIS. Tabula Rasa (talk) 06:44, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * But yes, I wouldn't rely on KiwiFarms to bolster any claims, especially the legally sensitive accusations of pedophilia. As ikanreed said, Kiwi Farms's intent is not to inform but to degrade and defame. I wouldn't rely on them. If they have links and sources that are verified, then use the links and sources, not KiwiFarms. 20:23, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

82.132.237.148 & 109.144.221.247 is Michael Coombs
Same UK IP range as his blocked socks mentioned on his user talk page... Not sure why people are wasting time feeding the troll.Thunder (talk) 21:35, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Have you not figured out that we're a hive of compulsive devils' advocates? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:37, 2 January 2019 (UTC)