RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive303

Good news on the epidemiology front
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/04/health/aids-cure-london-patient.html

Seems like the AIDS pandemic will be slowed down with this advancement. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 02:30, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This is really good news, but regarding the cure of AIDS, not the slowing down of HIV spreading. Thinker(unlicensed) 08:01, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * its early days yet. i'm not gonna hold my breath until its actually rolled out. in the meantime prep has been slowing the spread where its available. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:24, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That's okay, we're bringing back measles to make up for it. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:23, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That's dark man. Funny.  But dark. Hubert (talk) 20:09, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If I can be too real: the space in my 2019 world for hopeful, forward-looking thoughts is basically zero. Everything seems to be about doing damage control for terrible ideas causing terrible actions.  Even imagining stopping an onslaught of stupid, selfishness with callous disregard for honesty is crushing.  Curing AIDS, in the back of my mind, immediately makes me suspect it will be purposefully priced out of the reach of the huge swaths of the world suffering the most from HIV.  I don't have any defense mechanisms left for the unending tide of bullshit washing over everywhere, other than dry, disconnected humor.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:19, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * i was going to try and cheer you up by saying costs of meds have gone down so much that more people are getting effective treatment than ever, then i saw thisAMassiveGay (talk) 20:51, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not even surprised at this point. Spending billions on a wall and not enough on science is a perfectly American thing to do. Commie Lib (talk) 01:28, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * More along the lines of right wing nut jobs, not just America. As an American, we need to spend money on useful things such as medical research and fixing horrible infrastructure. The wall is a fucking stupid idea. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 21:04, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

An interesting Thought
So I was going through Reddit the other day, and someone made an interesting point. All those Youtubers who rant about "Politicization of Video Games" only care about identity politics. Think about it. A woman in a Battlefield game got all these people mad, posting 40 minute video essays on how the "SJWs" were ruining video games, but any other politics are fine. Here are a few examples of games these people tend to love with (not subtle) political messages:

-Fallout Series, about capitalism's flaws and the downsides to nationalism/american exceptionalism.

-Bioshock Series, essentially about why libertarianism fails.

-Witcher 3 (Often considered the greatest game of all time), criticizes racism.

-Stardew Valley (10/10 on steam, 10th highest rated game on steam) about an independent farmer defending a small town from a megacorporation.

-GTA Series, which basically satirizes America as a whole.

-Borderlands 2, Which features a corporate douchebag as the villain.

-Undertale, where pacifism is the best option in an RPG.

-The Elder Scrolls Series, which features elf nazis (Thalmor) as basically the only villain who isn't at the very least morally grey.

-Red Dead Redemption, the second of which features a eugenicist and klan members who you can kill without damaging your karma.

The list goes on. It's almost like most everything is political, and these people are just racist and sexist. Hmm...

An ordinary human man (talk) 17:28, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Well actually the problem is that Battlefield was framed as hyper realistic and to betray that is what made people angry about historical revisionism. None of these games talk about real life history so the examples fall apart. Also Fallout isn't just about America being bastards its about humans are bastards. Commie Lib (talk) 17:32, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * >gives every one automatic weapons >no what really pisses me off is the brown people. Féinléiriú (talk) 17:34, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * As thought war isn't a political act in itself. Féinléiriú (talk) 17:35, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * People were mad about the weapons too. Commie Lib (talk) 17:37, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Which is why all the YT thumbnails had a picture of the machine guns and not the woman when it was time to rant. An ordinary human man (talk) 17:38, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Well in 1914 people were still racist and sexist so having a women of color in the trailer in a combat role is pretty unrealistic. At least automatic weapons like the mp-18 did exist so it's not a complete kick to the face on that front. Commie Lib (talk) 17:40, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The germans black troops in the german with no distinguished uniform was a bit much for me, kinda let them off the hook imo. Even in ww1 a lot of high commanding officers in the german army were whack. There was a large indian presence in the war (under the command of the british of course and in separate units and uniforms). Féinléiriú (talk) 17:44, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That is true. The Indians made large sacrifices for an empire that only ever oppressed them. Kinda sucks.Commie Lib (talk) 17:47, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the war was more diverse than most people think. Still, a lot of people criticized the woman by saying that the devs were "politicizing" games. I made this post to point out that games were always political. An ordinary human man (talk) 17:48, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I can't disagree with that, Fallout, Bioshock, and Undertale are some of my favorite games. Commie Lib (talk) 17:49, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Exactly! They're great, extremely political games. Undertale less so, but still. The politics are there. An ordinary human man (talk) 17:51, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I've noticed that almost everything is political when you get down to it. This is because our political views include our views on multiple subjects, social, economic, environmental, personal taste in living areas, sexual and romantic preferences, life experiences, etc. The very idea of not making things political is laughable at best, as it ignores just how much our political views overlap with our personal views. 18:00, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * True. Pretty much all art is political, as it is a product of it's time. Some art is more explicit about it, but it's all political in a way. An ordinary human man (talk) 18:10, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

as tabula rasa already noted much of these are far removed from reality any 'politics' that is there is merely rationale for why you get to shoot people in the face. none of them can be taken as serious political criticism or even as particularly good satire. its pretty much window dressing that was always present in pretty much every thing. it doesnt effect the player experience in anyway. female characters or from varying ethnicities dont either but there is more a push for inclusion in all areas and the resultant pushback - that is where the politics come in. any inclusions of a female character is always surface in terms a gameplay, with zero effect and would be ignored if not for a vocal group screaming about politicisation, while their arguments about accuracy are complete dogshit even in games striving for it - historical or otherwise. its a marketing ploy, where accuracy amounts to fetishisation of weaponary or a gimmicky gameplay mechanic that is in no way similar to what it is meant to simulate. the level of abstraction in a game make it so you need to jump through a lot of hoops to explain why a female is game breaking when so much is left out by design. we accept the artifice and compromise because these games are meant to be fun, whatever else they may be, with inherent limitations on the medium. video games would so different if they were even remotely concerned about realism or accuracy beyond the most superficial lip service - they'd be horrific if they were. we dont want realism we want to pretend to be ubermenschs or or literal gods, with the satisfaction of feeling like you've achieved some amazing without any real effort. you turn it off and back to mediocrity and will never be superhuman. you'll probably never get teabagged by lady in real life either, but thanks to video games - you just might in your next online death match AMassiveGay (talk) 19:09, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I would like to defend the honor of Bioshock by saying that it actually does show the flaws of Libertarianism being the reason Rapture fell from Utopia. Namely lack of regulation of plasmids and no social support. Commie Lib (talk) 19:20, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * AMassiveGay, you make some solid points but while video games always take some sort of creative liberties, there also has to degrees of fidelity to the environment they're trying to replicate, as Tabula Rasa said. I can understand why people would be opposed to women in historical male-dominated situations and especially why that and not why people don't get realistically gibbed. And what players *want* to be really depends on the type of game, though, games are a very diverse medium and are better suited than films at delivering complicated plots and characters. Anyhow, people do still complain about politics in whatever (films, video games, etc.) and I know some people who just try to zone out intentionally when politics are even mentioned, which I find to be immature in many cases, and I do think the initial question posed has a point. 19:45, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The ultimate example of unspoken politics in a video game is fuckin' Star Fox 64. You are a bunch of mercenaries, who fly in, destroy everything you come across to put down an internal rebellion by an exiled scientist.  Along the way you destroy massive quantities of infrastructure, use weapons of mass destruction in populated areas, shoot down craft that have no armaments, all on behalf of what appears to be a military dictator.  Later games in the series do more to make it clear you're the heroes, but I still can't perceive the original as anything other than Blackwater, but furries.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:16, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * How about Modern Warfare 2? The earlier CoD games have some pretty explicit messages, like the mission where you commit a straight-up mass shooting while undercover. Shame they changed it to "Defend 'Murica, join the Army!" An ordinary human man (talk) 14:53, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I always got a NO RUSSIAN vibe from CoD. Commie Lib (talk) 17:21, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Always? Hard to take that from CoD 2 where the main campaign has you play a soviet soldier starting at the battle of Moscow.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:18, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * But it always had the feeling that the setting was just to justify the shooting. Commie Lib (talk) 18:47, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's how video games work. The setting of Red Alert 1 justifies the Soviet player during the first mission of that campaign testing poison gas on civilians. RoninMacbeth (talk) 18:49, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Space is so cool
Is the amount of matter in the universe, whether it be dark matter or ordinary matter, finite? How one would know whether it is or isn't? And finally, can be matter be created or destroyed? I keep hearing the phrase matter can neither be created nor destroyed, but others say that scientists do it all the time. སྤྱན་རས་གཟིགས་ (talk) 20:34, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * We measure matter outside of earth by way of it's gravitic effects on other matter around it. That allows us to pretty effectively measure the mass of the visible universe(including invisible parts like dark matter).  That mass is finite.  "Matter cannot be created or destroyed" is an axiom of traditional chemistry that does not extend into high-energy physics where energy in the form of mass can be converted into other forms of energy.  It is true that energy cannot be created or destroyed.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:45, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * So there could be matter beyond the visible universe? སྤྱན་རས་གཟིགས་ (talk) 21:13, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, note that there's a difference between the observable universe (i.e. the part of the universe small enough s.t. light - or any other information travelling with the speed of light - had enough time to reach us) and the entire universe. According to the standard model of cosmology, the universe is infinite in size, and if we assume that the matter density in the non-observable part of the universe is the same as in the observable part (or at least larger than zero), there is infinite matter in total. The amount of matter in the observable universe is in the order of 10^51 kg, or the mass of 10^21 sun-like stars, or about one Milky Ways (the galaxy, not the chocolate bar). At least according to Wikipedia, but I've heard numbers of about 100 billion galaxies in the entire universe from several sources and most of them are smaller than the Milky Way, so we're in the right ballpark.
 * The method I know for finding it out (I'm a cosmologist - currently not working as one, though - hence the cosmology answer) can be sketched as follows: From the standard model of cosmology we know the radius of the observable universe - 93 billion light years, or 8.8*10^26 m. Since the geometry of the universe is euclidean (another cosmological finding), we can use the usual formula for the volume of a sphere for the volume of the observable universe and arrive at 4*10^80 m³. From general relativity, we know that an euclidean universe must have an energy density of 10^-28 kg/m^3. Multiplied with the volume, that yields a total mass of 4*10^52 kg. From additional cosmological observations, we know that about 5% of this energy density comes from baryonic matter (i.e. matter as we know it in the form of stars, dust clouds and those tiny insignificant gas and/or stone lumps called planets non-cosmologists are so fond of), the rest is made up by the at this point (March 2019) unknown dark matter and even more enigmatic dark energy. 5% of 4*10^52 kg is 2*10^51 kg which is at in the order of magnitude I quoted above. --Imaginative username (talk) 21:37, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Everything you said is accurate, but the presumption of an infinite universe is just that, presumption. There's been no compelling evidence of anything outside our light cone, besides the valid intuition that we're not the "center" and we see things in the extreme in every direction.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 23:57, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's why I said that it's infinite in the standard model of cosmology. That being said, the standard model could accomodate a finite universe with minimal tweaking (as long as the universe doesn't happen to end right after the end of the observable universe); one comparatively simple example would be a finite closed universe in the shape of a 3-sphere or 3-torus which just happens to be significantly larger than the observable universe, so that we just can't detect any curvature. That's in analogy to how the earth looks flat to the casual observer standing on its surface when its curvature is just unnoticably small on the small part of the entire planet the observer can observe --Imaginative username (talk) 00:14, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Let's assume that there is an infinite ammount of matter in the universe. Can heat death still occur? སྤྱན་རས་གཟིགས་ (talk) 05:41, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There's no specific threshold of entropy for something to absolutely qualify as "heat death". It's safe to say the following: the amount of space for energy to be distributed across is an infinity of equal or greater order than that off mass.  It's a bit weird, because I don't know if space is infinite or transfinite, but it's big enough to scatter all the matter to and have no particle interactions left. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:43, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "I don't know if space is infinite or transfinite"
 * Do you mean "transfinite" as in ? Because I never heard of cosmological theories using transfinite numbers in their model of space(-time). Thinker(unlicensed) 16:27, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You've never heard of using real numbers in physics? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:12, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * but it's big enough to scatter all the matter to and have no particle interactions left. But if there is an infinite ammount of matter "'as well as"' an infinite ammount of space, wouldn't particle interactions always occur? སྤྱན་རས་གཟིགས་ (talk) 19:32, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "You've never heard of using real numbers in physics?"
 * I asked you if you meant "transfinite" as in because I never heard of cosmological theories using transfinite numbers. Real numbers are not transfinite numbers, so I don't understand your reply. Thinker(unlicensed) 20:04, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The number of distinct real numbers is. I mean that's the classic demonstration of cantor's theorem.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:05, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "The number of distinct real numbers is. I mean that's the classic demonstration of cantor's theorem."
 * The cardinality of the set of real numbers is a transfinite number, I agree. Although that's not a theorem of Cantor, but just a particular case of the fact that the cardinality of every set is a transfinite number, because of how cardinalities and transfinite numbers are usually defined. Said so, real numbers are not transfinite numbers. For example 3/2 is a real number but not a transfinite number. Back to the question: Did you mean "transfinite" as in transfinite numbers? Because I never heard of cosmological theories using transfinite numbers (let's say omega, omega^omega, epsilon...) Thinker(unlicensed) 20:23, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you. I know, please continue to describe facts I'm well aware of, as if they weren't central to the idea I was trying to communicate originally.  You missed the point: that you could ascribe a equal or higher cardinality of infinity to existing space than existing mass.  The end.  The whole   Trying to own me by re-litigating basic set theory and saying that no physics theory explicitly relies on it is really off the rails. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:49, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The conversation would be easier if you answer my question "Did you mean "transfinite" as in transfinite numbers?" instead of ignoring it for three times.
 * "You missed the point: that you could ascribe a equal or higher cardinality of infinity to existing space than existing mass."
 * What do you mean by that? In cosmology the usual model of "space(-time)" is a real manifold of finite dimension. Therefore, the cardinality of space(-time) is the cardinality of continuum. On the other hand, "mass" is a physical quantity measured by a real number. Since real numbers are not transfinite numbers (in particular, their are not cardinal number) you cannot compare the cardinality of space (a transfinite numbers) with mass (a real number).
 * "Trying to own me by re-litigating basic set theory and saying that no physics theory explicitly relies on it"
 * Never said that. I said that I'm not aware of cosmological theory using transfinite numbers. Thinker(unlicensed) 21:08, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Did you see the italicized word?  "Equal."  I'm also aware mass can be described in real number terms.  Though due to the nature of particles, it can be convenient to think of it as a countable quantity too.  I don't even know what we're arguing about.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:18, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This would be a good place to stop the argument.Ariel31459 (talk) 21:26, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * So then back to BobRoss' last question then. No.  Not all infinities are equal,  you can have a provably "larger" infinity mathematically speaking.  And depending on how they're described, one "equal" infinity can completely contain one or more other infinities of the same "size".  It's all very counter-intuitive, and I'm not quite equipped anymore to prove it, though this metaphor is a good way to conceptualize it.  The short answer is, yes, you could scatter every atom in the known universe to a different location and give it a momentum such that it would never interact with another particle, given enough expansion.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:37, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "Did you see the italicized word?  "Equal." I'm also aware mass can be described in real number terms. Though due to the nature of particles, it can be convenient to think of it as a countable quantity too."
 * OK, if you think of mass as a countable quantity (not a real number) then you can compare it with any cardinality, in particular the cardinality of space. In such a case, the cardinality of space is greater than the mass, because the cardinality of continum is greater than any countable ordinal. Hence you can remove "equal" from you sentence and conclude that: "the cardinality of existing space is greater than existing mass." But that is just an obvious mathematical claim, with no physical significance. I guess that you have in mind a different thing (maybe based on density?) and you are using the mathematical term "cardinality" in an improper way.
 * I see what you are driving at, I just don't see why you want to do so. I think we all know what cardinal numbers are. Try some fresh ideas eh?Ariel31459 (talk) 23:46, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I was just curious if ikanreed was aware of cosmological theories using transfinite numbers (which would have been quite surprising to me) and I asked, is that so strange? He repeatedly ignored my question and acted arrogantly ("You've never heard of using real numbers in physics?", "please continue to describe facts I'm well aware of", "Trying to own me by re-litigating basic set theory") when at the end it turned out he was just using the mathematical terms "transfinite" and "cardinality" in a wrong way.
 * "you could scatter every atom in the known universe to a different location and give it a momentum such that it would never interact with another particle, given enough expansion."
 * I agree. You could have just said that you were using "transfinite" and "cardinality" in an improper way and that your idea was about the distribution of atoms as you described, and the conversation would have continued smoothly. Thinker(unlicensed) 08:20, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Jesus christ, you nitpicky fuck. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:30, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You have been very bad children, no more fighting. སྤྱན་རས་གཟིགས་ (talk) 03:11, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Judge granted request to represent unborn fetus in court
The Hill: https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/432904-alabama-man-sues-abortion-clinic-on-behalf-of-unborn-fetus-he-claims-was

"An Alabama man filed a lawsuit against an abortion clinic after a woman who he says was carrying his unborn child had an abortion despite his wishes. [...] An Alabama probate judge granted Magers's attorney's request to also represent the unborn fetus, designated "Baby Roe" in court filings."

How is that legally possible? Surely one can be granted to represent another person (or other people) in a court of law, but as far as I understand an unborn fetus is not a person under US laws (and probably under almost every country laws). Thinker(unlicensed) 11:08, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Beats me. It will probably be overturned in some kind of appeal process. RoninMacbeth (talk) 20:38, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You say that like it wasn't concocted as a scheme to get the question before the supreme court as soon as they got over-loaded with fundies. I mean, sure it's a stupid legal theory that the supreme court should immediately reject.  But when did that matter? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:51, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * ...Oh, shit. RoninMacbeth (talk) 20:56, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Seems like one of those activist judges to me. —  Übermensch   Pierce through the wonder of amazement at the ubermensch  15:06, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Is Buddhism truly compassionate?
It just seems to me that Buddhism is focused too much on "inner peace" and while that might be well and good it just seems to clash with their ideal of compassion and the liberation of all sentient beings. I mean the reason why one would want to help others is because they are troubled or at least consider the conditions of others an issue, while Buddhism seems to suggest detachment. Their view of compassion seems a bit cold, kind of like "I feel bad for those who still suffer" yet they don't seem to actively move to change things around them. Those who worked for civil rights may or may not have had inner peace, but they were clearly bothered by events and fought for the changes required for things to move. Buddhism seems to take such situations and just let them happen so long as one has reached peace. So others continue to suffer but at least you're OK.

I just think their idea of non attachment doesn't work with compassion, since compassion is pretty much concerned about the outcome. If you truly practiced equanimity according to Buddhism then you wouldn't really have compassion, since suffering wouldn't be inherently worse than non suffering.Machina (talk) 21:21, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * About as much as any other religion that claims compassion as an ideal: some adherents, though not many, try to keep to that ideal. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:25, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Thing is, Buddhism doesn't teach compassion-- at least not in the sense you're using it, Machina. Buddhism teaches that the world is an illusion, of sorts-- pain and suffering and general things going to be crappy is inevitable and what it's all about.  "Inner Peace" isn't the goal, either-- it's Enlightenment, and more or less it's about coming to an understanding that things aren't.  Really.  Things aren't, or at least they don't matter.


 * And you have to do it yourself. No one can enlighten you, you have to enlighten yourself.  A teacher can be helpful, in some forms of the religion (but not all-- the earliest form was very self-directed) but in the end it's all on you.  Civil rights injustices?  Why, yes.  Let them pass.  They are, after all merely a part of the world, and the world is an illusion, to be moved beyond.


 * In other words, Buddhism isn't about compassion. At most, it's about not hurting others, and maybe helping them to enlightenment as well, so they too can not give a damn about the world being a crapsack, since it's all an illusion and doesn't matter anyway.


 * Sort of like that anyway. Like I said, it's complicated and I don't get it too well myself.  I guess I'm too Western.Kencolt (talk) 22:34, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Jesus, that sounds even worse than my current understanding of it. That just sounds like apathy. At that point what's the difference between that and suicide? Seems like killing yourself would be easier, since that doesn't sound like any way to live. Though I guess it's easy to not give a damn about the world when everyone else does the heavy lifting to give you the stability to not give a damn. They can say such things don't matter, but they do. Value is subjective after all. How did this spread?Machina (talk) 01:53, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Value is subjective. So, if they don't matter to you. they don't matter.  Even if all the bad is happening to you... especially so, then.  And no, suicide is not a workable option.  Suicide just sets you on the wheel of karma that much faster, and still with whatever baggage led you to suicide in the first place.  Like I said, I suggest you read the article, and maybe a bit more.  It's not a philosophy that I would personally espouse, but it's not simple in any case. Kencolt (talk) 05:00, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I did read it, but it just sounds kind of cold really. I think they made up the Karma wheel to prevent people from taking the easier route out. Because there really isn't a point to being enlightened, ironically.Machina (talk) 20:44, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that compassion for all is a virtue in Buddhism, though ? Diacelium (talk) 07:30, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Or, depending on how it's translated, an avoidance of cruelty. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:32, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Rather. I'm far from an expert, but from what I can glean from reading what I have, Buddhism is less about "doing what's right" and more about "Not doing what's wrong". Kencolt (talk) 18:40, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I mean, it's a religion. And it's a diverse religion that lacks a uniting character as central as Christianity's Nicene creed(and you've seen how different branches of Christianity can be).  Lots and lots and lots of schools of thought exist, and most of them try to incorporate some kind of moral viewpoint.   Trying to pin even a well-defined religion down as a single set of beliefs is hard.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:43, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Just how gullible are these people?!
In this video, there is this scam cult that promises to magically free its members from debt somehow. These people are so fucking sick- preying on disadvantaged people! -- Goatspeed. 21:29, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Cult scams people, preys on gullible. In other news: water is wet. RoninMacbeth (talk) 21:37, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * And it's really not meaningfully different from sovereign citizens. At the root of that belief system were actual scammers who promised people the impossible in exchange for money.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:42, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * lets go easy on 'gullible', as if any us are so sharp and on the ball that we wouldnt fall for anything. its clear that they are more accurately 'desperate'. you tend to believe all kinds of shite in you are in a hole and some cunt who tells you he knows a way - you clutch at any straws you can find. this is how scammers work and its how cults recruit. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:12, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This, IMO. There's no shortage of "Prosperity Gospel" believers stateside built along similar lines for the most part (less thugs in fake uniforms, more "miracle money"), but draped in the more socially acceptable guise of Christianity. Given the focus is on removing debts, I'm more inclined to believe that people who fall for SWISSINDO are more akin to people with cancer falling for naturopathy than Sovcits trying to get out of paying for their cars.
 * Also, as an update, the leader had since said he would stop such practices, and was apparently arrested a few months ago. I don't speak Malay though so I'm not sure what else may have happened to him. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 16:02, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The first sovcits were exactly the same thing though. They were poor, super in-debt people looking for an escape hatch.  And were given one by fraudsters.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:11, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Guys, can we stop spurious revdels?
There's exactly one listed reason in the community standards for revdel, and that's pages that contain personal information. We don't need to expunge every unpleasant and unwanted memory into a fucking memory hole. We aren't conservapedia. It doesn't help with any of the following: hosting expenses(the database records are kept), protecting people from seeing truly repugnant things they don't care to(you have to go digging for reverted edits), SEO web crawling bots(google knows to disregard old revisions that aren't linked anywhere). It only serves to bury mundane facts about edit history of iffy users.

I'm not saying you can't delete dumb edits no one cares about, but I really think it looks bad for the wiki. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 04:28, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, actual threats or thinly-veiled threats (like "You should kill yourself.") from drive-by assholes should be deleted. They serve no purpose other than to intimidate. Bongolian (talk) 05:27, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree with ikanreed, in my opinion, revdel should only be allowed in limited circumstances. As far as I can tell, revdel appears to be generally accepted in the following circumstances. There is way to much revdel going on recently, this is true, also revdel of logs, which is equally annoying. 10:57, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hiding personal information on request or where it could constitute a breach of privacy rights.
 * Removing threats, if the threat is so egregious that it shouldn't be left visible.
 * Author request on own userpage, for example to hide their embarrassing personal writings.
 * I will say, I personally also think that copyright violations have a good case to be revdelled, but that requires an annoying community standards discussion to establish. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:24, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Damn I think I started it. I just want to prevent the satisfaction of recurrent trolls coming back and reveling at their "damage". 19:50, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

We cannot allow a goat gap!
Wikipedia now has a feature to deliver goats, entirely automatically, to any user's talk page. And we don't. The principle of Mutally Assured Caprinity must be protected. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:15, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This feature could be added, as part of the next software upgrade if you like? 18:29, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

If people can say the Earth is flat, then I can say that the Earth is a Isosceles triangle!!!!
It makes just as much sense as flat Earth. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 21:08, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * But isn't an isosceles triangle flat? I think you wanted to say a right pyramid. 179.99.65.71 (talk) 21:51, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Flat Triangle Earther WRECKED with FACTS and LOGIC. 22:24, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I wonder how many people I can sucker into thing that the Earth is an Isosceles triangle? --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:12, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You need a convincing reason why the Earth would be triangular, otherwise people wont buy it. 01:08, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The need for a convincing raisin for Flat Earth in 2019 hasn't stopped people from buying it. Just say both Globes and FlatHeads are in it for the grant money. 01:47, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, a convincing raisin isn't really needed. A convincing currant, or even prune, would be sufficient. Kencolt (talk) 13:40, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Besides, Earth is a rhombus. Like a square, only slightly bent. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 04:26, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * But if the Earth isn't flat, how else can we have triangles with three right angles? Huh? CoryUsar (talk) 03:38, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Antisemitic conspiracies
I am fedoratippingskeptic, I want your assistance in refuting these racist and disgusting lies against jews why do jews have so much media influence and power in oil? is it true that jews push for feminism and the destruction of the family unit

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySnk-f2ThpE Rockefeller oil racket

2604:2000:814B:B300:8C66:4F6F:3B09:B7CA (talk) 06:08, 9 March 2019 (UTC)


 * There are Jewish people who support feminism and highly progressive polices which break down the traditional family unit. However, Orthodox Judaism is actually very supportive of traditional patriarchy and large families, and eschews progressive viewpoints and technology. Thus, it's not true, and easily debunked. It is true that specific Jewish people are influential in the oil industry and in media, but proportionally they are less numerous in the top positions than people of other religions. So that's not accurate either. so sayeth the Elderz of Zion 18:42, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Ever since I created the Truth Never Sleeps article…
Every time that someone adds the "Articles about creationism" template to an article, I am told that another page is linked to Truth Never Sleeps. How do I stop this? It's annoying. Yes, I know that there are hundreds of creationists, but I don't need to be told about each and every one of them. Thank you for your understanding. --LABcrab (talk) 17:23, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Unwatch that article. — Oxyaena   Poke me  14:20, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * For clarity, that's the blue star on the top of the page. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:23, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You can also disable the "page link" notification for all pages by clicking "Preferences" at the top of any page and going to the "Notifications" tab. This lets you keep on watching pages but avoids the "someone has linked to" notifications for any page, which I find to be useless anyway. --Annanoon (talk) 17:31, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

How does one know if they are trans?
I'm just curious really. Mostly for myself.Machina (talk) 20:43, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * According to trans people I've talked to, a lot of them don't really know for a long time. Like most things it's an accumulation of evidence and understanding.  I'm cis as fuck and can't contribute any personal experience of my own, though.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, it's just something that I want to know more about though. I think there are somethings that I could use assistance with.Machina (talk) 20:56, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Another cis-het guy not only commenting on the trans experience, but also about to parallel it to the gay experience, so watch me get out on this high-ass wire here. In the musical Fun Home based on Alison Bechdel's memoir of the same name, she describes an experience as a young girl when she saw a woman making a delivery and was tremendously struck by the woman's bearing, her swagger, the way she dresses and the big serious ring of keys she carries. And A.B. just instantly resonates with the short-haired pants-wearing serious-business lesbian because there's a thing she's felt for years that she can't put words to and then the feeling is just standing there in front of her. Being a straight white guy, this kind of visible goal-outlet is easy; pick your life's hero from just about any film made. If you have a smaller pool of what it means to be 'a person like I want to be', you might not have the words or the concept and be forced to look a long time, be very insightful, lucky, or all of the above. Good luck. Semipenultimate (talk) 21:09, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Gender Dysphoria can manifest in different ways, so it's hard to answer the question. In my case it's usually a very very strong feeling that, well, everything is wrong, that can last for hours, leaving my unable to do anything but lie on my bed. Others have more strong specific body dysphoria, where they hate their genitals, or their beard, or their broad shoulders etc. There have been times I've shaved 6-7 times per day. (This is from an MtF perspective obviously). Other things can be a feeling of happiness at being correctly gendered (happens to me, despit being a few months away from HRT, long hair & androgynous face + winter clothing = yay!). But there are a lot of signs to consider really. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. Dendlai (talk) 21:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It just feels rather nebulous to me. Like a sensation that I cannot put into words. There were some things in the past and when I was a kid, and now that I am older it seems like it might be something else. I thought it to be gay, truly. I do like guys, yes. But I identify more with the female body.Machina (talk) 21:35, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Mistaking being trans for being gay isn't all that uncommon (anecdotal evidence, I dunno of any studies). But first coming out as gay/bi, and then realising you are trans, happens (it did to me). There can be some confusion. A nebulous feeling does sound possibly like a form of dysphoria. Oddly, too, after realising I am trans my dysphoria has actually *increased* a fair bit. Trans stuff is complicated... Dendlai (talk) 21:54, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You're telling me. I feel confused. Part of me wondered if maybe it was just to make being with a guy OK (like being a woman), but the more I live and experience things the less I find that to be true. I know logically that there is nothing wrong with gay, but looking at women's bodies I feel transported, like THAT IS ME. Then I look in the mirror and well....... I don't know....Machina (talk) 22:22, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * there are guys who seek out trans women because they are gay but in denial and that scratches an itch while saying to themselve they are not gay. there are guys who seek trans women because they see as them as cis women but with sexual morals of men. this is not trans and is just the perception of what i would hope to be tiny minority. all i can add from a brief flirtation years ago and being around and occasional dating of people self described as trans is more of the same. time, self knowledge and the freedom to express it. all deeply personal to how, why and what that means. you have the final authority on your own self and what you wish to present to the world. its a broad church and if your own view differs to others in minor or major ways does not mean it is not valid. hrt or surgery need not be necessary nor be an end goal. if the label is an issue, there are other descriptors more specific or more nebulous if that ever becomes an issue. nothing is set in stone and there are few things you wont be able to work back from if something isnt working. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:41, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * i can maybe add a note for trans men in that they appear to virtually invisible in the circles i move in and as a result i cant even give an opinion, even one from a distance. i dont know if thats an issue for others or is just me and can only apologise if my ignorance has an effect of sidelining or demeaning your experience in any way AMassiveGay (talk) 23:53, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

It's not, it's just that I have some feelings that I can't really explain away easily and I don't know what to do. I would like to say that in video games I am often drawn to being a female. I remember one time I had a powerful experience when I finished dressing up my character, it felt like "that's me" followed by confusion, anxiety, and a mix of other feelings.Machina (talk) 23:56, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I used to have gender dysphoric feelings, but then they went away. I sublimated them into religion. At one point, I convinced myself that when I die, God will reincarnate me as a woman. My thoughts now are somewhat less specific – I have given those feelings to God, and he has them now, and he will fully answer them in some way in the next life, even if I can't be exactly sure how. And now, I have a wife and two children, and I doubt I could have this if I acted upon them in some way (like transitioning or whatever) – I certainly don't think I could have had the two children I actually have anyway. So it actually makes me glad I never acted on those feelings, that I kept them pretty much entirely to myself–years ago I told a good male friend, who didn't seem to get it and even though we still talk all the time we've never discussed it since; I told my girlfriend at the time (this was before I met my wife), who seemed so excited by the prospect of me transitioning it actually discouraged me from it; I told a GP once, who gave me a referral to a psychiatrist, but I never made the appointment. Of course, this is my story and other people's stories may be completely different. But I think the conversation about gender dysphoria is dominated by people who come out and transition. Research indicates that people like me – people who don't act on the feelings and find they fade with time – are actually a substantial proportion, but we don't feel motivated to speak up and "come out of the closet" by joining in the conversation. Our stories don't really sit well with the political debate – they don't really serve the trans rights agenda, but many of us don't want to endorse some religious conservative (or radical feminist) "ex-trans" agenda either. DepressedAustralian (talk) 02:06, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Proud to be a Kansan
[This] is the text of the resolution our Senate passed to condemn the State of New York's abortion bill. Kansas is gonna make itself a laughingstock once more. 20:15, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You're the state that doesn't even have school 5 days a week anymore, right? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:16, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * We still have regular school days in the area I live, but who the heck knows what Western Kansas is doing. 20:50, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oklahoma I think got some notoriety for their four day a week schedule because of budget constraints, but there's actually a lot of Western states with a fair percentage of schools on 4 day weeks now. At any rate, the reading skills of these legislators certainly seems questionable -- in the text for the New York bill they are crying foul over, for instance, there is definitely a section regarding "absence of fetal viability" that they are complaining about in this bill. (Then again, abortion is often a issue to get a section of populace, a populace who seems to think little of things like rare third term trimester birth defects, roused up. They're more likely to know, but not care. This text legally means nothing, but gives conservative talk radio show hosts etc. something to fume about. I can hear the rants about those "goddamn New York coastal elites celebrating the killing of babies with a pink Freedom Tower" now...) Soundwave106 (talk) 21:29, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Not a great week to be a nutmegger either. Some dimwit in the state senate wants to "teach the controversy" about global warming. Schools are basically the only thing we are known for, and this fucker wants to ruin it. An ordinary human man (talk) 14:54, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "Kansas born, Kansas bred, here I lay Kansas dead." That's something I'd like on my tombstone, if I die soon enough for my mom drag my body back.  Keep in mind, Kansas is ranked no 17 in state education despite western Kansas.  For me, it was elementary school going KCK, Wichita, Manhattan, Lawrence, and then Shawnee Mission.  How I learned was mostly collective/cooperative learning, and I was given a lot of time to go to the library in all of these cities.  When my family got moved out of Kansas in the 5th grade, I took my first math speed test.  I told everybody that I scored 100 because I went back and checked over my work.  Yeah, so, apparently that's not how a speed test works.  Can't speak for middle or high school, but 90's Kansas northeast was trying out some good shit in elementary education.  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:56, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Black conservatives debate black liberals on American politics
This is really interesting. Especially the part at 6:31 resonate with me. Thinker(unlicensed) 09:36, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Uncle Tom debates Fredrick Douglas on the importance of slavery. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:35, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Could you be any more racist? nobsI'm all yea'res 18:09, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, anyone can be republican. It's not hard.  I know you like mirroring the words used against you without any of the substance.  It's kind of the whole game you've got here.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:17, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * So Blacks are incapable of independent thought, is that your precept? nobsI'm all yea'res 18:32, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That sure is a dumbass racist opinion, nobs. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:38, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

In the eyes of many on the left a black person who is a liberal is an empowered free thinker, but a black person who is a conservative is an Uncle Tom/traitor/brainwashed. --RWRW (talk) 15:45, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Can confirm. But also not just "in the eyes of".  It's got the merit of being entirely true. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:47, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * ...and not only that's utterly false, but it also shuts down any possible conversation, damaging everybody. Those many people on the left you mentioned could listen to black conservatives and learn something from them, but instead they classify them all as Uncle Tom/traitor/brainwashed and refuse any dialogue. Thinker(unlicensed) 16:18, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * But does this apply only to the US - other countries may have other viewpoints. Anna Livia (talk) 16:21, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "But does this apply only to the US" In other countries there are very similar situations, of course not identical. The general pattern is: if some person, belonging to a group that was historically associated more with the left, disagrees with some leftist politics, then she is harshly rejected by the left with insults very similar to those that one would expect to come from a far-right group. For example, in Europe this occurs when  Black legal migrants say to disagree with today leftist politics about immigration. Thinker(unlicensed) 16:54, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Must be great to be able to label your opponents as brainwashed race traitors because they have different opinions. Commie Lib (talk) 17:16, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * this such a broad claim its meaningless. who is saying they disagree and with what? what is the nature of the disagreement and has it merit? presumably you examples in mind. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:39, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * in the uk at least, i'm not even sure 'leftists' even have a policy on immigration. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:50, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "what is the nature of the disagreement and has it merit?" That's the point: It doesn't matter. Because they are Black and migrant, they are supposed to agree to any leftist politics on immigration, otherwise they are traitors. Thinker(unlicensed) 19:13, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * it makes all the difference with what criticisms are levelled at who. i thought that was your point - that broad over generalisation were a problem? or is just when leftists (a nebulous term in this context) do it its a problem? there is a problem here - characterising criticism from one group as without merit, as lies, or fake news - a popular tactic amongst some unpleasant people, but this is what we have come to expect from you - more sealioning diversionary tactics from a disingenuous prick. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:55, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "that broad over generalisation were a problem? or is just when leftists (a nebulous term in this context) do it its a problem?"
 * It's always a problem. Assuming that someone must agree to some politics because of his skin color, sexuality, or some other physical characteristics, is wrong. In this case it was about Blacks, and a gay man. But the rule is general. Thinker(unlicensed) 20:50, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * its funny because with that specific example, only a small part of the video, when you see his reaction to the guy listing some policies concerning hiv and lgbt issues, in general and in black communities, and of the harm these policies were doing the vitriol he said he received was probably well deserved. he was angry that he should care, that it was even his problem. he had no problems, they should stop whining. if he displayed just a tiny hint of that view, elsewhere, i would have no doubt as to why he lost friends. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:07, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "they are supposed to agree to any leftist politics on immigration, otherwise they are traitors"
 * This sort of simplistic deduction is kinda like constructing an argument like this: "blacks are supposed to agree with opposing voter id laws or else they are traitors". I mean, yeah, immigration laws people push for tend to be racist (I think that's pretty well established) and I think it's reasonable to oppose laws that target you on the basis of race. 20:29, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

this video is only enlightening in the sense of that it reflects what i already suspect about conservatives - boiled down to i'm all right jack. that and the polarisation thats been present for years, and a general disillusionment with the US political system. its interesting to note, that when examples of are given by someone of shitty trump policies or how communities are hurting, the response is always 'thats not me, i'm doing ok'. trumps racism is never addressed. when brought up its side stepped, 'democrats are racist too'. i'm certainly not surprised by the vitriol directed at the guy at 6.30 in the video. i am well aware of folk, in the uk, who claim to have 'never kissed a tory', and i am well aware of racism in gay communities. though hearing that guy's dismissal and callous disregard of the issues of HIV and of LGBT in general, i'm not surprised he received such vitriol and lost friends. Im not sure what i am expected to learn from black conservatives, if this group is representative. their views are as self serving and as dismissive of the problems of others as their white counterparts. and as 91% of black people voted democrat, they cant be seen as representative of black people in the us, or even conservatives in general AMassiveGay (talk) 17:35, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * And besides, we're getting lectured by a very very white someone who has said on these very forums that he thinks white people sexually harassing black women is good(or maybe never happens; he was vague on why he thinks it's not a problem). I don't really forget the incredibly stupid, unthinking bigotry I've been exposed to by this fuck easily.  Either way, it's hard not to recapitulate that UT should shut the fuck up.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:50, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * What!? I never said that. Thinker(unlicensed) 18:28, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "Im not sure what i am expected to learn from black conservatives [...] as 91% of black people voted democrat, they cant be seen as representative of black people in the us, or even conservatives in general"
 * Can't they just be representative of themselves? Thinker(unlicensed) 18:38, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it's a problem when people like you prop up black conservatives as some sort of moderating tone or "independency" as what you're doing here. Is agreeing with "leftist" politics considered like groupthink as you're constructing? Aren't these pro "leftist" folk also representative of themselves? I tend to think the reason blacks generally don't vote Republicans because Republicans don't respect them. 20:21, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * in the video its an accusation that conservatives threw at the liberals. the liberals response was to say they voted acording to what policies they thought best. one lady added context of that was how her mother decided on who to vote for was policies because as a recent immigrant, she had no idea of who republicans or democrats even were. another chap listed trump policies, and the harm they were doing and going to do communities. there was was no similar reference to any policy specifically or in general by the conservative side, except maybe a vague references to taxes.
 * so i'd have ask again, what is it i am supposed to learn from this? i'm pretty sure its not what UT thinks im supposed to. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:52, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Life in the UK. nobsI'm all yea'res 18:15, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * if you going to make some point nobs, you might want to use a clip with people who are not clearly australian AMassiveGay (talk) 19:21, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Damn. I wish they'd learn to speak English. nobsI'm all yea'res 20:41, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You were just so irate over the outrageousness of a commercial existing, it faded your memory. I know you've said a lot of bigotted shit in your time here, remembering this specific one might be hard.  Since you've only got two plays, and you just did the lying one, it's time for the nitpicky bullshit one.  Either way, you should, in fact, shut the fuck up.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:36, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I said (with sarcasm) that "a tv show with a white man grabbing the bottom of a black housekeeper and making fun of her in front of a laughing audience" it's not a real thing. You said that I said that "white people sexually harassing black women is good", which is a totally different thing. You are saying that I'm fine with harassing black women, which is a lie and a terrible accusation. Thinker(unlicensed) 18:45, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, so it's the other unforgivably racist interpretation that sexual harassment of black women doesn't happen. Either way,  Go away, you contribute nothing but useless bigotry and mealy mouthed whining.  You goddamn racist fuck.  19:21, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "Oh, so it's the other unforgivably racist interpretation that sexual harassment of black women doesn't happen."
 * No, it's the fact that tv shows with a man grabbing the bottom of a black housekeeper and making fun of her in front of a laughing audience are not a real thing. If you disagree with that fine, but that doesn't justify you to lie and say that I said "white people sexually harassing black women is good". Don't you see the difference? You cannot tell lies painting someone as a supporter of sexually harassment because you dislike his opinion about a tv commercial. Thinker(unlicensed) 19:53, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Just shut up. You're dumb and wrong and racist.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:17, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Wow, you found a tv shows with a man grabbing the bottom of a black housekeeper and making fun of her in front of a laughing audience... except not.
 * Sexual harassment of housekeepers (and every person in general) is terrible. We agree on that. Every decent person agree on that. That's why there are no such tv shows, because the audience wouldn't laugh, they would lynch the perv! Thinker(unlicensed) 20:42, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Only watched the part you highlighted -- didn't feel like wasting any further time after that. I can't say that part resonates with me -- it's the "I'm a victim" card that literally everyone is playing these days. Republican Party messaging today is literally being guided by Fox News and talk radio and other populist crap, networks that are all about hurling insults at liberals, minorities, women, anyone on the coasts, etc.. In this environment, Republicans really have no right to whine about said liberals, minorities, women, coastal residents, etc. turning around and hurl insults back at them on social media. As for the guy in question, American politics is now heavily tribal-oriented, and in *all* of humanity, if you are "outside the tribe", you are going to deal with tribal backlash. Honestly, whatever, deal with it, that's human norm. And to be fair, given the dominant messaging, in this case isn't there a pretty good reason for the vitriol? (American political tribalism at least has some reasoning behind it. It is not tribalism due to belief in bullshit woo. Which is often not only often flat out nonsensical, but worse in action. See your cult religions for examples.) Soundwave106 (talk) 21:30, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * In the simplest terms, the opinion of black people only matters when it lines up with liberal "progressive" ideology.23.118.143.3 (talk) 12:48, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Michael Jackson
So, on the 6th of March they broadcasted on one of our TV Stations a documentary from HBO about his Pedo behaviour in my country. Is it on mission if we have an article about this? Tinribmancer (talk) 22:53, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Whip up a draft and try to make it missional. We can decide to make it mainspace from there. RoninMacbeth (talk) 22:55, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I've seen reactions to Leaving Neverland, and I've been a bit confused by it. People seem to be acting like these are complete unheard accusations when far as I know, it wasn't exactly a well hidden secret how much Jackson sexual assaulted those at his ranch. Not wanting to denigrate the accusations in the least, I just don't understand why people are acting like this is new information. Revolverman (talk) 23:10, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Because alot of people didn't wanna believe it. My sister, for example is a Jackson fan and didn't believe a single word of it and even got pissed when I mentioned this a few years ago (don't know if she knows about that recent docu). And let's be honest, he slept with young boys in the same bed when they came over to stay at Neverland. It still confuses me when people said: "he's just crazy and weird, that's all".


 * I am interested in how those shitty conspiracy theories (that he's soaking up the sun in Miami, that the Illuminati killed him, that "They" did it...) will evolve (new ones (he's probably going to be linked with sekreet elite pedophile rings), old ones changing...)Tinribmancer (talk) 23:23, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but this isn't even the first exposé on Jackson, never mind the two very public trials. I just dont understand why this one seems like its going to stick when so many others didn't.
 * When it comes to "Conspiracies" its funny that they even exist for Jackson when its fairly well documented how much his father fucked him up, and thats why he behaved the way he did. Rather then any Illiunanti or secret rings, or whatever. Dunno if it was ever proven, but I did read his father was secretly giving him hormone therapy when he was still part of the Jackson 5. Revolverman (talk) 23:39, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not 100% sure if it will stick. The denialism in the commentary section is strong... Tinribmancer (talk) 00:41, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * To be fair to Corey, the most common criticism I've heard about this documentary (such as say this review) is that it *is* one-sided. (In that it focuses on the two victims expose style.) I don't think it's any secret (and well established) that Michael Jackson behaved weirdly and inappropriately with kids, but the exact details is still up in the air. Michael Jackson was tried and acquitted of child abuse after all, the two in question originally stated that nothing abusive happened,, and the one caution I've learned from anything I've been involved with that gets an "expose style treatment" is that the expose is often horribly wrong. I wouldn't call such a thought denialism per se, as none of the above changes that Michael Jackson *did* behave at best weirdly and inappropriately with kids (and at worst was indeed a nasty molester). It's just caution. Soundwave106 (talk) 12:58, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * So, umm, apparently we already have one. Michael Jackson. RoninMacbeth (talk) 23:54, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Strange, for some reason when I typed in his name, I got results. Hence the reason why I made this topic. Tinribmancer (talk) 00:41, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Either way, I guess it couldn't hurt to try and add some of the other information to the existing article. RoninMacbeth (talk) 01:39, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * My sympathy for a person who endured a lot of mental abuse during his own childhood and as such ended up broken inside is strong. I never was a big fan of his music: always remembering that disco sucks, cannot do anything other than suck, and always will suck.  But I am a fan of other things, and realize that he had many fans, and wanting to rip his creations out of their lives is something they are justified in refusing to do. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 03:05, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I do think that it would be better that some of his songs aren't being played at the moment, like "Smooth Criminal" for example. Tinribmancer (talk) 23:04, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * A highly talented global superstar that forces most people to hold two competing thoughts ("He's Amazing!"<--->"He's a pedophile!") is a great example of mass cognitive dissonance. Also MJ may have been a precursor of the post-truth era wen crimes are committed in plain sight and technicalities are offered as proof of innocence (e.g. "I would never intentionally hurt a child" and "There was no abuse". True, when one boy complained anal sex was painful, MJ stopped and never attempted it with him again. Millennium Scallion (talk) 15:59, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * it seems that those so convinced of his guilt it would be crazy to think otherwise. are you all so sure? soundwave touches on it, but i'll go further.
 * after years being portrayed as a bizarre weirdo in the press, are sure that these accusations are true and not 'you always thought there was something off about him', and every lurid claim becames gospel truth regardless of the veracity?
 * can you really tell after years of lies and exaggerations said about him, so many and so often,that you that one claim truth, another is a lie? or if they have been confirmed in someway, that this is damning and not something innocent or ill considered and is feeding into already existing bias?
 * when you see a documentary, can you be sure nothing was omitted? that it happened in the way it was presented? or that something else might have happened that might make this less likely, or vital information hasnt been omitted, intentionally or otherwise? is whats there accurately presented, no undue weight given to things to make the case just stronger than it is.
 * and of the people making these docos? the reputations, their methods, their integrity? that they themselves havent any unknown bias or preconceptions? a film maker worth his salt could make anyone appear to be anything without making a single lie.
 * are you able to look all stories and claims true or false, from over the years, filter out the lies, the mischaracterisations, remove your own biases, and make an unambiguous case?
 * i cannot do any of these things. i dont have the time nor inclination to hunt all this down. i dont have the training or indeed intelligence to weigh this up, to sift fact from fiction, to see beyond what i already suspect.
 * i do not know. i do not think any of us do for sure and can possible be able to know for sure. its likely that we never will.
 * without some kind of trial, some sort of inquest, a formal investigtation, its he said/she said. horrible heinous crimes are claimed, but this just makes people more convinced or adamant to think one way or another.
 * myself, my blanket response of innocent till proven guilty should be the right response. but the emotive effect of even the accusation of these things, i have to qualify it with 'but i wouldt trust him with my kids'. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Both you and soundwave can answer this question: Why would HBO be making this up or even think about broadcasting this (even as far as this being broadcasted in other countries), if the victims were pulling PIDOOMA's? Ever heard of intimidation? Child molesters use this alot! Tinribmancer (talk) 20:59, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * none of what you said there is based on any specific fact in this case, how it ties into anything, or that this is actually what happened. i said i dont know. what you said was noise and just muddies the water. exactly my point i was trying o make. i could cherry pick some things, say this lie therefore its all suspect. you could do the same. what would it prove? HBO is a tv station isnt it? they are in the business of making tv shows. thats all their stake in it is. all they will have to do is ensure that they, as a company, wont be sued. ask the director or any one else who actually put it together. im sure they believe it. im sure to alledged victims is pretty convincing. i am sure going through reams and reams of material, is going to be convincing. it maybe damning. but i didnt go through it all. you didnt. im sure the director to do his damndest to make the best case he can. you bet it will be convincing. but it is tv show. it wont show everything. it will have spin on things. it does have an agenda. i read an interview with the director - hes amazed that people still think he mj is innocent. did he make the film with an intention to uncover the truth or did he make it thinking it confirmed what he already knew? how reliable are the people he spoke to? not just the victims but those peripheral - staff, friends? its all probably damning. the sheer weight of it all is damning. it might be all true. tv shows, websites, are not the forum for this. it cannot be conclusive and it cannot be viewed with a clear mind untainted from what we have all heard over and over. we can never know for sure from all this and i do not believe there is any formal setting available where it would be possible for any kind of certainty. even then, with all this noise, he'd still be guilty, no matter what. its the nature of things. with the media, the internet, everyone with an opinion. if he were really innocent, beyond any doubt. he'd still be guilty. it would terrifying. AMassiveGay (talk) 00:40, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * For the same reason Rolling Stone magazine wrote an article concerning rape on campus that ended up being bullshit. Sensational sex accusations sell, especially when they fit an "ongoing narrative". The other potential factor (regarding the accusers) is the wealth of the Jackson estate. Now, I'm *not* saying that the victims in the documentary aren't telling the truth, they absolutely might be. There is a lot of allegations by many, many people at this time. And by behavior admitted to by Michael Jackson himself there's no way I *cannot* say that Michael Jackson acted very weirdly and inappropriately around children (I mean, I can't frame the sleepoverss in any other way). Whether the inappropriate behavior stepped over into abuse / sexual territory is still an open question here, though, because other children at the sleepovers have said nothing abusive happened, and more sober investigations (trials and criminal investigations) have not been able to conclude anything (although in one case the family settled out of court). I can give you an "armchair quarterback" feeling (which is probably similar to what you have concluded), but I can also tell you that exposes are often not a very reliable way to contribute to the conclusiveness, particularly if (not sure if it's the case with Leaving Neverland but it's been the case elsewhere) the expose over-utilizes emotion-oriented entertainment tropes over sober analysis. Soundwave106 (talk) 13:20, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, the HBO doc was emotionally compelling; the men openly admitted that at the time, they were romantically in love with MJ, willingly engaged in sex acts with him, and were intensely jealous of other boys that received his attentions. Not the typical "accusation for profit" where the victim is careful not to admit any degree of cooperation. I see it as an Occam's Razor proposition: it's a proven fact that MJ slept with young boys behind locked doors, and this went on for years. The explanation that he was a child in a man's body and had no sexual drives unnecessarily stretches credulity. - Millennium Scallion (talk)
 * I mean, yeah, Millennium Scallion's point entirely. I love the Dave Chappelle joke "What if getting your dick sucked by Michael Jackson was the cure for cancer, somehow?"  Not because it's the funniest joke, but it's tasteless and it's a flip of the narrative, and most importantly it's a time piece.  It's a 15 years old joke.  It's brazen and gross and only makes sense at the time, and in the context Chappelle spends some effort to walk around it.  The punchlines all assume it happened but are delivered without alienating Jackson die-hards.   It was an in-the-know joke speaking to a comedy audience that still did not know or care about the cost of sexual exploitation.  I am blown away by the number of people who want to debate the validity of this today.  If you didn't know Michael Jackson was molesting boys, well, he was.  If you think the documentary is unfair, well, whether it is or not, everybody always knew Michael Jackson was molesting boys.  Gandhi molested his own nieces.  Mother Theresa enjoyed watching people die.  These are things that people have known, that have been easier to talk about after their deaths.  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:26, 13 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Look the allegations have been debunked numerous times excellent example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pnoQqlygQs&list=PLmirOw7JCi826i_J_xsWhtY7jh2sqIlpX  But more to the point the media and sony were gunning for this singer for years. The FBI raided his place. If there was all this evidence how the fuck did they miss it?23.118.143.3 (talk) 12:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Is pluto a planet?
Please clairify this for me, I'm not sure
 * According to current astronomical standards of what planets are, no. Are you violating some scientific law to call it one?  No.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:22, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * What IKR said. In brief, it's what's known as a . Because it wasn't large enough to "" per the new 2006 IAU classifications, it's not considered a "true" planet. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 16:28, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Is Mercuri a PLANEt then? And why is Mercury so hot Ocarina (talk) 16:29, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, Mercury is a planet. It's about twice the size of Pluto, twice as dense, and thus a lot heavier. It's also "cleared the neighborhood" of its orbit, so it's a planet. Also it's only the side facing the sun that is incredibly hot -- as Mercury has no atmosphere and one Mercury day is about two Earth months, the dark side of Mercury can dip to -120 degrees Celsius.


 * By the way, Google is a thing, you know. Developing good research skills is important. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 16:35, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I know Google is a thing. Where are their aliens? I hope in the future we can go to the planet with aliens, I hear one planet has aliens, which of this would it be? Ocarina (talk) 16:38, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * We are on a planet with aliens... 16:43, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * (What? Did you mean immigrants?)  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually I was referring to every lifeform on Earth, given that 'alien' is such a nebulious label that we qualify from any possible external perspective. I personally prefer to refer to such thing as "lifeforms found on X." (X being wherever said lifeforms have been found.) 17:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * We have not confirmed the existence of life anywhere but on Earth so far. Sorry.  They're looking hard on Mars of aliens, but it's not gonna be fun aliens you can talk to if we find any.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

pluto is very clearly and obviously a dog of some description. a great dane perhaps? no clue what the fuck goofy is meant to be. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:45, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Does Martian have alien? I think maybe Pluto does if its not too cold Ocarina (talk) 16:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It is definitely too cold on Pluto for life as we know it. The surface regularly dips to negative 233 C°.  If you took the difference between summer in Florida, and winter at the north pole, then multiplied that difference by 5, you'd have how cold it is on Pluto.  It's cold.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:52, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Why can't aliens be cold? Maybe there cold aliens that can live in cold place Ocarina (talk) 17:04, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Life as we know it depends on liquid-water cytoplasm within cells to catalyze essential life functions such as metabolism, transcription, or mitosis. No known water mixture is liquid at that temperature.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:31, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This is really basic stuff that can be easily answered in moments. You should do a search engine first and read some of the information about Wikipedia. You know about Google, why not use it? 19:06, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Ocarina - possibly this wiki may be more appropriate for you. You may also find this and this of interest. Anna Livia (talk) 19:18, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't know, are you a dog? — Oxyaena   Poke me  01:30, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * To whom are you replying Oxyaena? I was giving Ocarina links appropriated to ze/their stated age. Anna Livia (talk) 00:05, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Hate speech targeted at LGBT people
I have heard Homophobic and Transphobic hate speech many times (I live in an area of Michigan that is strongly conservative) before. It makes me wonder- do these hate filled people have anything better to do than worry about what other consenting adults do? It is not like homophobes pay the bills of LGBT people.

I know I catch myself saying "life partner" when referencing married gay people but I don't mean anything by it. Hearing the term "life partner" my entire life, I still catch myself saying it. I was born in 1994 so it stuck with me. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 16:17, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I was born in 1985 and came of age well before gay marriage was the law of the land, and I'm pretty used to just "husband" or "wife" as appropriate. And no, they don't have anything better to do.  Being on the right wing in america is about finding enemies to hate.  It's actually a unspoken top priority.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:22, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that I also grew up in a highly conservative town with churches on every street corner. Not really a hyperbole. I did notice that many fundie churches in town are closing their doors. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 16:54, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I live about four blocks from the Westboro Baptist Church. 16:58, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think you get deep into skepticism without growing up exposed to its opposite, to be honest. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:09, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I grew up in the rural south too. First baptist church across the street from another first baptist church, immediately next to [townname] Presbyterian church, just down the street from first community baptist church.  Confederate flags worn to school.  It wasn't the deepest, most rural southern experience ever, but the experience of big red doors next to self-righteous signs everywhere isn't that uncommon.  I defiantly recall being called a "godless heathen" by an English teacher.  The experience of being immersed in that culture isn't one you forget.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:09, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Well. The current strategy is a kind of wedge strategy. It's been going on for some years. And it does deserve an article on RW if I have the energy to write it. The conservatives using TERFs to drive a wedge between the LGB and the T. The goal is not just to destroy the T but to weaken LGB too. This is something that worries me. I am likely safe here in Sweden, But in the US, UK, Canada, not so much. It's hate, nothing else. Dendlai (talk) 17:32, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It never ceases to amaze me how robust the treadmill of "Okay okay, after a long and hard fight where we accuse you of the most heinous crimes in order to block you from basic human rights, we now accept you, so please join us in our equally insane crusade against the next trivial amount of human progress" is. Goes back at least to the early 1900s.  We need not decieve ourselves that TERFs are representative of cis lesbians, but the evangelicals only need a few to be figureheads anyways.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:52, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "do these hate filled people have anything better to do than worry about what other consenting adults do?"
 * Probably, this question is old as the first movements against homosexuals.
 * "I know I catch myself saying "life partner" when referencing married gay people but I don't mean anything by it."
 * I don't understand why you are saying that. As a gay man, I would be perfectly OK with somebody calling me "life partner" of someone else. Is that offensive in US? I believe that in US "partner" has been used for a long time to refer mostly to "partner in businesses", but in my language it translates to a word that has always been used as a gender-less term for "partner in love". Thinker(unlicensed) 20:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Same in the Fundy (Protestant, but pretty much everyone heard there is one) radio station I listen for the lulz or to vent some anger. Mixing genre ideology with abortion, "radical feminism" (the usual slippery slope of women ruling like the amazons in mythology), and claiming behind all that are both the "radical left" and the lobbies of those things as much as they say to respect at least feminists. And I've heard worst things other times, as well as in other now defunct.Panzerfaust (talk) 08:17, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Twenty years ago
The stage was set for the birth of Rationalwiki. (See current Google Doodle) Anna Livia (talk) 17:46, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It says 30. Kencolt (talk) 17:48, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'd be pretty troubled if amazon.com and yahoo web search predated the web. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:52, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Is the world a better place with the Internet? --RWRW (talk) 17:54, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * In no way, shape, or form.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:40, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Whatever - the anniversary is noteworthy - and probably something relevant happened in 1999. Anna Livia (talk) 18:19, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, yes. There was a huge explosion on the lunar surface, sending the moon careening into deep space and into a black hole, which acted as a space warp, causing the 311 survivors on Moonbase Alpha to--  Oh, you mean stuff that really happened.
 * Yeah, sure, probably something notable. Kencolt (talk) 18:24, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm adding this comment only to say that I got that reference. 21:06, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I also sprach Zarathustra. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:10, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * And... wrong reference, IKR, but thanks for playing. Kencolt (talk) 21:50, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Referencing a prequel is the wrong reference? What is this gatekeeping silliness?  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 22:46, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It is when I'm NOT referencing Kubrick, Clarke, or anything with the number 2000 in it in the first place. Kencolt (talk) 06:52, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * TIS THE INTERNET YOU FOOLS. Nah, but honestly, I don't get any of that. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:53, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I was typing in a hurry - and possibly referencing the Millennium Bug and these. Anna Livia (talk) 14:56, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

How about Seduction Of The Innocent?
I noticed there's no article for Seduction Of The Innocent on here. Why not? Clavstime (talk) 23:37, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It might have a small subection under Moral panic, but I don't think anyone would resent you doing a real article about it. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 00:37, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Scratch that, we have a pretty good cover of the comic-specific bullshit in Comics Code Authority ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 00:41, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That said, perhaps the mention of the book can use some expansion in the main article. (If I recall correctly, one of Wertham's arguments was noting that most delinquents carried a rolled up comic in the back pocket, thus nefarious connections were made.  The fact that at that time and place, every kid had a rolled up comic in their back pocket was glossed over...) Kencolt (talk) 19:25, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Do you mind a question?
Why are lots of accounts- new accounts- deleted every day? I've looked at data and I can see that ever since September 2018 you've been deleting a LOT more new accounts. Any cause for this? Johnnyart (talk) 03:00, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you have statistics to show this? Because if you do, I would be very interested in seeing them for moderation purposes. RoninMacbeth (talk) 03:03, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, here you go. Any idea why this would be happening? Johnnyart (talk) 03:13, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I know I've had some old accounts that I made when I was drunk and left alone and then couldn't remember the password to. If those got deleted, I never noticed.  It never stopped me from making a new account.  If nobody is saying "hey my account got deleted" probably nobody's active account got deleted, and it probably didn't get deleted maliciously.  Just an argument from false authority/Occam's razor of the situation.  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:04, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Watch your step comrade. Dissent is not tolerated in the worker's paradise. Official state science may not be questioned. Kenny G (talk) 09:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah so for technical reasons we don't delete accounts, what we are seeing is one or two people we banned a while back creating large numbers of new accounts and trolling until we block them. 09:47, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Dysklyver - I clarified your remark - and would eg 'mistyped name followed by correct name' be dealt with as well (as such could happen). Anna Livia (talk) 18:47, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * We would just end up with an extra account that never gets used, which has the wrong name. 13:05, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Who are these large troll accounts, in particular, creating so many socks? List a few. Johnnyart (talk) 21:50, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Well I don't know every past troll by name, but recently we have had Mikemikev, Logicnsuch, and the Unnamed Transphobe make a lot of accounts here, generally just to make a few disruptive edits with each account before someone blocks them. It's not a big deal, just one of those things about a wiki. 00:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Which one of the three has caused the most disruption? The data I've observed has shown an unprecedented number of bans in the past month. Johnnyart (talk) 00:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Nobs joins the Discord
Just thought I'd inform the people that only post in the bar that Don Juan has invited him yesterday (Dyskie was for this aswell), and that the discord might have solved that problem on the site if he intends to post more on the discord. Juan also wants more people from the site to join the discord, so he might send an invite to Thinker aswell. Which would/could solve the current invasion of sealions. :P

And it seems that nobs has been defending RW on Conservapedia, which got him in alot of trouble. Tinribmancer (talk) 10:33, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you have links for any of that? I didn't see anything from a search of CP. It would be rather peculiar given that he (now) thinks that we've been "hijacked by extremists for a political agenda that conflicts with Rationalwiki's stated mission". Bongolian (talk) 00:03, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I, Don Juan, mentioned it to on the Discord because I saw it on Nobs' article here, Nobs himself confirmed it, in his own roundabout way of course. He complained about how he tried to bridge the two communities, RW and CP, and how all it did was get him hated from both sides of the aisle, his defense of RW was the reason he was banned from CP in the first place. —  Oxyaena   Poke me  13:51, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , That's odd because Karajou's reason for the initiating what turned out to be a 3-year block was, "Lying in email; making false accusations". Bongolian (talk) 16:47, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Genes have no effect on intelligence
LOL. Liberal creationism at its finest. Samantha Priss (talk) 14:41, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Seriously are you guys going with this? You're already pretty much a laughing stock. Samantha Priss (talk) 15:52, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Ha ha. So funny. 15:57, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "There are no genes that affect human intelligence."
 * I guess that the intent was to say that human intelligence cannot be completely determined from genes in an easy way, like: "You have gene X, Y... then your intelligence is..." But it must be explained much better, because of course there are genes that affect human intelligence, just pick that leads to intellectual disability. Thinker(unlicensed) 17:40, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The rest of the paragraph for "no genes that affect" has heritability at 50%, not zero. The troll is taking the priss out of us, correcting an obvious error, where the first sentence contradicted the rest of the paragraph, knowing the likely response to the edit. --Actual human (talk) 17:51, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't understand, right now the page says "There are no genes that affect human intelligence," who has corrected that? Thinker(unlicensed) 18:32, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Samantha Priss did. --Actual human (talk) 18:47, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't get it. Neither the sentence "There are no genes that affect human intelligence" nor the sentence "There are genes that affect human intelligence" are supported by the given source, which doesn't talk about genes but talks of IQ an heritability. Thinker(unlicensed) 19:19, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * What's the problem here? Genetic theory was always a conspiracy to oppress the workers. Do you really think there is any genetic variation in brain genes? Can you 100% prove this? Didn't think so, checkmate capitalists. Define genes, I won't hold my breath. What is IQ anyway, just a pseudoscience made up to keep the socially-constructed black man down. Why are we even having this conversation, I'm offended. What is this hate hour? Everyone has the same intelligence, stop the hate. Gene Simmonds (talk) 19:21, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

There is evidence that suggests genes affect all animal behavior in some way. Please go to the appropriate talk page to introduce evidence for your edits.Ariel31459 (talk) 19:42, 10 March 2019 (UTC)


 * There is evidence. I can find qualified scientists that agree with me and quote them saying the same thing. Checkmate. Gene Simmonds (talk) 19:45, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This isn't a game. If people think you are trolling they will block you eventually. Go to the talk page and state your case.Ariel31459 (talk) 19:50, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and block me from your Nazi wiki bigot, I'll leave you to spew your vile toxic hatred. Gene Simmonds (talk) 19:52, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * OK. You are blocked for 1 hour. Think about your edit. See you later.Ariel31459 (talk) 19:59, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hijacking this thread, despite obvious trolling above, because the talk:IQ page is locked to BoNs (but in the usual display of RW incompetence the actual page is still editable). In truth, I am just mocking and laughing so feel free to move onto other topics if you aren't in the mood for a little bit of introspection into the state of the RW community.
 * From the Lede of IQ article -"Since IQ is simply a score, it is inaccurate to claim that one "has" a high IQ or a low IQ, when it more or less means "scored high" and "scored low"". Putting aside the tortuous construction of the sentence, how hilarious is this statement? In the interest of accuracy, we must say not that we are 6 foot tall but that we have been measured to be 6 foot tall. We must not say that we weigh 100 kilograms, but that our eyes have detected light rays that deflected off a measurement on a scale indicating 100 kilograms.
 * MarcusCicero, your people need you now more than ever. 198.16.66.101 (talk) 06:22, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking that's just poor wording. From what I *think* the article is trying to say, I believe it's something reflected in this quote: "the notion of measuring one's intelligence quotient or IQ by a singular, standardized test is highly misleading." (I actually think the next sentence in the article ("The use of IQ as a measure for intelligence enjoys widespread acceptance in modern academic psychology.") is somewhat incorrect as well -- sure, IQ tests enjoys widespread usage, but the predictive ability remains controversial, and the relationship between environment, culture, and genetics are still up in the air.) At any rate, poor wording is a heck of a lot better than the truly laughable trolls in the talk page who can't stop talking "IQ" and "genes genes genes", without even mentioning environmental and cultural factors at all. While genetics is an important component of intelligence, the trolls are ignoring other key parts that, at the very least, also play a significant role. Generally speaking, I would guess there's a reason why they are doing that... Soundwave106 (talk) 16:10, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It's hard, but I'm going to ignore your incorrect statements about the "controversy" over IQ predictive validity. Suffice it to say, if you have a problem with that statement, one of the most robust, replicated and accepted psychological facts, then your problem is with social science research in general not just IQ.
 * I get why RW has this massive raging boner for arguing about IQ, and it's hard to work out what is legitimate science and what is alt-right trolling for the lay-observer. To be fair, IQ research is often used as a trojan horse to sneak in people's racist ideas. I think the problem is that the RW editor base that was actually able to engage with scientific articles has moved on, and what is left is a bunch of Don Quixotes tilting at scientific windmills they don't have the wherewithal to understand, lest it turns out to be an alt-right provocateur in sheep's clothing. There's a tangible desperation here, from editors who know the racist ideas peddled on talk-pages are incorrect but are utterly unable to engage with the arguments because they don't have the first clue about research.
 * Given that, your statement: "At any rate, poor wording is a heck of a lot better than the truly laughable trolls in the talk page..." is so indicative of the current RW climate. We might be imprecise, we might look stupid, we might even be wrong but at least we aren't an alt-right troll! 50.7.142.180 (talk) 00:56, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * RationalWiki is a wiki. Feel free to draft a better paper with citations, especially if you are in the field. Personally, I am finding enough papers (in addition to the links already posted, see this one here and here) to suggest this is far from settled science at the moment. ("Controversy" is probably too strong of a word as there is overall an indication of some sort of correlation for certain aspects -- some of the above papers say as much. But I would say that judging from the papers, "robust, replicated, and accepted" is probably too strong of a word as well. The strongest accepted predictive correlation as far as I can tell is between IQ and educational performance, and even then there is caution in some papers that it's possible to overinterpret a test result.) That being said, I'm only doing a brief meta scan of papers (this is why I'm not actually trying to edit the article and am just chit-chatting), so of course I'll accept a better analysis. (I definitely won't accept a "you're wrong but I won't tell you why or link to why you're wrong!" though! :) )
 * The problem with IQ tests is that they, indeed, have been used for dark purposes in the past -- we're talking well beyond alt-right trolling and into the history of the eugenics movements. Yes, I think it's better to be a bit clumsy than to be one of those who use bad science as justification for hate, whether it's the alt-right trolls peddling discredited eugenic ideas, or the actual leaders who believed in eugenics, those who in the past wielded an IQ test as a justification for sterilizing citizens, or worse. Of course, the idea would be to improve the IQ article and accomplish both goals. But it's much easier to bitch about a Wiki I supposed. :) Soundwave106 (talk) 13:43, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the invite to edit the wiki, but those days are past. Changing people's minds here is next to impossible - I note that a BoN has tried to educate editors on the talk page by linking to some of the articles published by the APA to combat common misunderstandings of IQ, and was asked to provide "generalist sources" rather than journal articles, ignored and then the talk page locked. However, since you took the time to respond I'll address what I think is the main thrust of your point, that IQ tests are not "predictive". Since you posted a meta-analysis into socio-economic status, let's see what the article finds on the predictive validity of IQ.
 * From the introduction and conclusion of Strenze (2007):
 * "...the scientific research on the topic leaves little doubt that people with higher scores on IQ tests are better educated, hold more prestigious occupations, and earn higher incomes than people with lower scores"
 * "Thus, the existence of an overall positive correlation between intelligence and socioeconomic success is beyond doubt."
 * "These results demonstrate that intelligence, when it is measured before most individuals have finished their schooling, is a powerful predictor of career success 12 or more years later when most individuals have already entered stable careers"
 * Like alot of the editors here you have conflated inter-research quibbles of the effect sizes, relative contribution of factors, retest effects etc... as general controversy about whether IQ is predictive or not. This is a similar mistake made by those who claim there is disagreement in climate science because some models predict 1.5 degree heat rise as catastrophic and others predict 2.5 degree (numbers will not be correct).
 * Perhaps the editors here need to ask themselves why they are viscerally rejecting mainstream scientific opinions before they understand the research? The RW I helped create was pro-science, why has that changed? 139.130.16.222 (talk) 05:43, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, and there are other links I have posted that challenge some assumptions (the Ken Richardson 2015 paper challenged elements of job predictability). Nonetheless I think we are quibbling on similar points with a different viewpoint on applicable scope. What I will reiterate is that there has been misuse of IQ tests for dark political purposes, and countering this is probably more in line with what Rationalwiki is about from my perspective. Even with the limited sample of papers I posted, I think there is enough uncertainty and caution to demonstrate that anyone holding the certainty of a eugenics type opinion is, frankly, a complete fucking idiot. Soundwave106 (talk) 12:58, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If Eugenics is your issue why aren't you out there trying to refute Evolutionary Theory, after all, it informed Eugenics far, far more than IQ ever did. The misapplication of scientific theories is not an excuse to throw them out.
 * Way back when, people from here used to try to convince Schlafly that mainstream scientific theories were "Liberal". They did this to create absurd situations where he had to argue against really obvious facts because, for example, the Theory of Relativity was somehow linked to Moral Relativity and thus must be rejected outright.
 * Trolls do the same thing here to great effect. If they can convince RW that somehow IQ research is related to racism, eugenics or has unpleasant ideological implications then they can wedge editors into denying scientific facts and looking like idiots. Make no mistake, almost every sentence in the IQ article is either wrong, or not even wrong because it is a misunderstanding of the theory.139.59.241.161 (talk) 06:43, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Look, if you are too lazy to re-write the article, too lazy to even make a fucking account to actually sign your name without a revolving array of IP numbers, too lazy to even add any fucking citations when addressing my point where I have posted several, then shut the fuck up. You have IMHO demonstrated that you have no fucking ability to do anything but mouth off and complain and bitch, you have not even demonstrated an ability to actually even do a fucking Google Scholar search level of counterpoint. You keep saying the article is wrong, but you have posted no citations backing why. At this point I think even the limited amount of research I have done outdoes your fucking mouthy "it's all wrong" bullshit. So, show some fucking citations, do some actual fucking work, or get off your fucking high horse, troll pretender. (And do stop trying to do Tucker Carlson style loaded question misdirection, where the fuck did misunderstanding of evolution come into this?) Soundwave106 (talk) 12:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Settle down there big fella, don't cut yourself on your edge. I'll definitely plead guilty to being lazy, but the pot is also a little black, you have two mainspace contributions to put to your name. You might find that ten years down the track you too are disappointed in a project that had so much potential, but ended up just being the promised land for neckbeards.
 * In any case, I'll make sure to inform the IQ researchers that Soundwave106 is about to break open the whole field - we await with bated breath (sorry about razzing you up, but impossible not to after a bottle or two).203.63.218.20 (talk) 13:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course, I'm pretty new here, so the joy of the BoN community is also new. Time to throw this conversation into the troll-bin where it belongs, then. And enjoy your bottle or two! Soundwave106 (talk) 17:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Commies?
Why do so many of your regular editors have user names which involve "commie" or names mocking fascist figures? Is this a political advocacy wiki masquerading as a science wiki? What happened? Does the owner know about this? We all know that commies were the least scientific of all people e.g. Lysenko. Isn't it shameful to lie to the public like this? And please don't respond with name-calling and "bullshit" and the typical sophomoric nonsense. Empiricist (talk) 14:35, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Cool Story, Bro. Revolverman (talk) 15:11, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait...are you saying it's bad to mock fascist figures? 15:18, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Because people like you show up to bitch about how reality doesn't conform to a certain viewpoint? I mean my username has multiple reasons behind it, mocking Communists, mocking people who use Communists as a scare tactic, a play on "Grammar Nazi" to name but a few. 15:23, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Mine's just based on a punny name one of my high school teachers gave to a cow plushy. 15:24, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I can only think of grammarcommie(liberal who is making a joke about grammar nazis) and "commie lib" aka Tabula Rasa, who is making a joke about the conflation of communism and liberalism, drastically different ideologies. Recent political events on the right and center have made me, personally, reconsider the things far-left ideologues have been saying for ages and I'm more sympathetic to them than I used to be, but you?  You're dumb, and reading way too much into jokes.  Because of the aforementioned lack of intelligence.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:44, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, my user name does have two letters that are also in USSR in it. Spud (talk) 17:06, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Also potatoes are the food of evil papists. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:10, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Slight correction, I am not a Liberal, as I am farther left politically than Liberalism covers. I tend to identify as a Social Democrat/Moderate Socialist, when I identify as with label at all. 17:15, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not as though any of the various usernames here really mean anything in the wider world. Grammarcommie may call himself Grammarcommie, but that doesn't make him a Trotskyist.  (His rather vast collection of Leon plushies, now that's somewhat suspect.)  Ikanreed is suggestive of literacy, if not an ability to spell.  And for all that, I could call myself Princess Polka-Wonko-Flurpy-Bang, and very few would assume that I am royalty.  (Or sane.)  For that matter, using a name like Empiricist without looking at all the evidence, rather deriving everything from a signature isn't indicative of your ability with empirical thought.  Which, I note, you have yet to demonstrate.  So... names.  Princess Polka-Wonko-Flurpy-Bang (talk) 17:18, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * and i have a wife and 3 children AMassiveGay (talk) 17:24, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, I actually didn't expect that one. 17:29, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Neither did I, to be honest. But I like to think it offers some validity to my point. Kencolt (talk) 18:01, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm musically inept and I can't play bongos. Bongolian (talk) 18:45, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I am neither Japanese nor the protagonist of a Shakespearean tragedy. Well, hopefully not the protagonist of a Shakespearean tragedy. RoninMacbeth (talk) 20:29, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I was up a tree, but now I'm free. Thank you Prospero.Ariel31459 (talk) 00:28, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Did you cut the soles off your shoes and learn to play the flute? Pere Ubu (talk) 19:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * What I actually dislike is when some users use signatures that do not correspond to their usernames. Apache69 21:14, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * We like having deranged signatures. 01:13, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Surprisingly, I’m not a marsupial.... (And no, I’m not Australian either). ScepticWombat (talk) 08:19, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, I figured as much. After all, in nature, wombats are known for being extremely gullible and willing to believe anything (most subscribe to intramuscular injections of homeopathic colloidal silver, for example).  Yes, I AM making this shit up, duh. Kencolt (talk) 10:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

From the initial post: " We all know that commies were the least scientific of all people e.g. Lysenko.."  (Putting aside the question of whether or not Lysenko was unscientific because he lived in a communist state.) Who would be the "least scientific" of modern groups? Flat Earthers? YEC's? Vaccine deniers? Global warming denialists? It's a tough call.Hubert (talk) 18:50, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Initial post is just a bad attempt at riling a response. But funny enough, YEC, vaccine deniers, and anthropogenic climate change deniers all fall in the same right-wing camp who dangerously politicize science, and I don't see right-wingers exactly supporting and trumpeting the safety and benefits of genetically modified food either. 21:47, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm late to the party but my username was cribbed back from 2010 for MarioWiki when I was like 14 and thought up of some really dumb nickname for myself. Again, I was like 14, so I wasn't even familiar with political labels. Anyway, I'm left-handed and the latter two refers to a literally green-wearing Mario and not Luigi. 21:47, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Can someone please ban 2601:CA:8200:34A:8B8:F7AC:B0E6:CC9C
This person has been repeatedlty attempting to blank pages regarding white nationalists over the past week or so. I'd do it myself but it's been so long I've forgotten my password. (I was formerly on the site as Arawn Emrys) &mdash; Unsigned, by: 64.118.180.10 / talk
 * First off, signature please. Now I do support that notion. Racists wrongfully editing pages should be banned. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 16:41, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I oppose this ban. Firstly, it's against an IP, a major no-no on this site. Second, why not just revert, and if necessary, protect? Simple, straightforward, with no more effort than needed. 19:09, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Bullshit. Temporarily blocking BoNs is fine. Just don't indef them Three days should do the trick. Also some of you need to learn the difference between a block and a ban.-- MtD Bogan   23:46, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The proposal is for a Ban (permanent), not a block (temporary) 15:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize there's a distinction between the two. I'm not fit for mod...! 18:53, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The difference is largely Wikipedian semantics and thus a highly overrated irrelevancy.  01:17, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Jussie Smollett pleads not guilty
The Wall Street Journal: https://www.wsj.com/articles/smollett-pleads-not-guilty-to-lying-to-police-over-alleged-attack-11552580099

"Actor Jussie Smollett pleaded not guilty in a Chicago court Thursday to multiple counts of lying to police when he reported being the victim of a racist and anti-gay attack in late January, his lawyer said. Mr. Smollett, who stars on the Fox television show "Empire," has been accused of planning and faking the attack, in which he said he was approcched by two men who yelled slurs about his race and sexuality-and then physically attacked him before placing a rope around his neck"

Thinker(unlicensed) 19:06, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Let's hope he gets a black jury so he can continue fighting white racism. Euphoric Intelligence (talk) 19:09, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * In Chicago? That will be hard..... Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 19:22, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm curious to see what the defense strategy will be. Thinker(unlicensed) 19:50, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * They're probably going to try and discredit the two Nigerian guys. Their testimony seems to be what most of the CPD's case is built on. What I don't know is how the defense plans to deal with the proverbial smoking gun: the check Smollett wrote out to the Nigerians. 20:05, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * In any case, the little shithead cooked his goose, and I hope the justice system can make him eat it. 20:07, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "They're probably going to try and discredit the two Nigerian guys. Their testimony seems to be what most of the CPD's case is built on."
 * Discredited how? Saying that they really attacked Smollett, or saying that they did not attack him?
 * "What I don't know is how the defense plans to deal with the proverbial smoking gun: the check Smollett wrote out to the Nigerians."
 * That's already know: They said the check was for helping Smollett to get fit for his next musical video. Thinker(unlicensed) 20:20, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * My guess is they're going to argue that the Nigerians are lying to save their own skins. If the defense succeeds in casting the Nigerians as untrustworthy witnesses, I'm betting a skilled attorney could get Smollett off on reasonable doubt, just because of how much of the case seems to rest on the Nigerian's confessions. I'm also interested to see what happens, but I think it'll be some version of this. 22:05, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "My guess is they're going to argue that the Nigerians are lying to save their own skins."
 * Well, but in such a case, what would be the motivation of the Nigerians for committing a racist hate crime? The defense has to convince the jury that the two brothers attacked Smollett and then tried to pretend he had asked them to stage everything. This requires to explain why the two brothers attacked Smollett in the first place. Also, there are no video proofs of the attack itself. Thinker(unlicensed) 13:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * i'm sure we can all find out during the actual court case rather than idly speculate. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:02, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Media vultures
Does not matter what political stance, reporters are vultures. Why do I mention this? Last night a tornado came through my area (Shiawassee County, Michigan) and there was some damage. After the tornado ended there was obviously emergency crews in the area. Now, a news reporter interviewed a police officer about the damage and actually asked if hundreds or thousands of homes were destroyed. The areas where the tornado hit were has only small towns and the country side. How would thousands of homes be destroyed? Got to love media vultures. On a side note, I wonder how I actually have power and internet? That tornado was a mere 1700 feet away from my apartment! --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 13:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That sounds more stupid than predatory and exploitative. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The two aren't mutually exclusive. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:6C5D:2EE2:4AFB:6C04 (talk) 19:55, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but it's more one than the other. Predatory would be, I don't know, pursuing someone to find how their life was destroyed when they want to be left alone.  Or pitching a "It could happen to you next" shock line.  Or a lot of things that aren't failing to grasp how tornadoes work.  I'm glad RZ is okay, though.  Forgot to say that.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * thank you. One thing that steamed my beans was that moments after the tornado, there was people recording footage for their YouTube channels and getting in the way of police, fire and medical service vehicles. As for the tornado itself, all I would have had to do was walk uphill and I would have saw it. The person living on the farm uphill got footage from his property. How do I know? The guy who sent the footage to MLive news, I recognized the property. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 21:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Can't you get arrested for interfering with disaster workers? 21:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Not sure. Though if you refuse to obey instructions given by law enforcement, I know that you are subject to arrest. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 22:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I just read the California DMV. "If you drive for sight-seeing purposes to the scene of a fire, collision, or other disaster, you may be arrested. Casual observers interfere with the essential services of police, firefighter, ambulance crews, or other rescue or emergency personnel." So that's where I posed the question from, might be different for your state. 23:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Some Room for Improvement?
As a very occasional reader of RationalWiki, I can only contribute sub my IP address, and I apologise. Perhaps I should not bother you with this, but I wonder who has written the lunatic introduction to Same-sex marriage. And has nobody seen fit to make a few changes to it? Very best, Bessel Dekker (80.60.39.11 (talk) 01:20, 14 March 2019 (UTC))
 * At the risk of showing that I can miss the obvious, what exactly is lunatic about the introduction? Kencolt (talk) 05:15, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't see what's wrong with it either. 13:23, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The introduction to the article in question is not only acceptable, it is informative. The BoN's motives on the other hand appear less than pure... 13:40, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey BoN perhaps you should stuff your fucking bible up your ass you cunt. Having two dads is the same as having a normal childhood you impure piece of fucking shit. Fuck you BoN. And yeah homosexuals and blacks are the best dancers, you bigoted fucking asshole. Euphoric Intelligence (talk) 13:55, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You seem to be jumping the gun somewhat. The BoN seems more concerned with tone rather than content, at least thus far. 15:45, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Tone my ass. What does he mean "supposing" blacks and homosexuals are better dancers? That's sheer bigotry. As you pointed out it isn't pure at all. Euphoric Intelligence (talk) 15:54, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems you have missed the point of my post, as I intended to illustrate that the complainant failed to discuss before making the linked edit. Somewhat undermining their credibility. 19:12, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * As for my initial comment, I was slightly concerned about:
 * ”Already as of July 2015, the institution of traditional marriage has been improved destroyed in twenty-one countries.[note 1] As a result, millions of poor innocent people around the world have been forced to watch their gay friends and neighbors declare their loving commitment for one another publicly. This, of course, is a sign of progress in society Satan.”
 * How, for instance, I could be a Bible-thumper by objecting to a reference to Satan is a question which baffles and amuses me: I have issues with his being brought in in any serious way at all. But I understand from the above comments that all of this is “informative”.
 * In addition, there seems to be some confusion related to my edits in quite another article, Homosexuality. As a homosexual I can testify to knowing a lot of gay and lesbian people who do not conform to the stereotype of being “better dancers” (and this includes myself). As for the bit about distinguishing colours, there’s nothing rational about it. I wonder what reader could take this seriously — and if you lose your readers, you lose your raison d’être. Which is fine, of course. I thought I’d be able to contribute something. I was mistaken. 80.60.39.11 (talk) 19:40, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Please excuse Euphoric Intelligence, he's a troll who has been banned. If you want to remove sterotyped content (like tha dancer stuff), please feel free. RoninMacbeth (talk) 19:47, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I would hope that you recognize the quoted section as being somewhat snarky, something that is a recurring theme on this site. That being said, I do not necessarily disagree with your opinions on the other pieces of disputed content. I merely disagreed with you removing the disputed content before the discussion had either begun or concluded. 19:53, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sincere thanks, RoninMacbeth. There is much to object to in both these articles, especially on the basis of the relevant literature. I do not think I have the stomach to do so now. However, GrammarCommie, I apologise if as an outsider I am unfamiliar with this project's mores, and, worse, have failed to realise this myself. Best of luck! 80.60.39.11 (talk) 20:01, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

As a practical atheist I don't find anything offensive about the article. However estimates have it that 75% of Americans do believe in God. Assuming that All folks are alike in this respect, it is reasonable to suppose that 3 out of 4 LGBTQ folks believe in God and are not comfortable with jokes about satan and irreligious bullshit that atheists think is so hilarious. We alienate some people by ridiculing religion out of context.Ariel31459 (talk) 23:37, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * thats an assumption that i dont think can be made not the us but something similar is likely, especially since it is religion and/or the religious who are at the fore front of prejudice AMassiveGay (talk) 15:52, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, but most people not affiliated with religion still believe in God. They didn't ask the right question.Ariel31459 (talk) 01:25, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a real stretch of the concept of "all things being equal" there Ariel. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:31, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, I don't know. I tend to think of LGBTQ people as just like everyone in sufficiently large numbers.Ariel31459 (talk) 01:20, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but, you know, the whole "this religion has actively attacked you as fundamentally and irreconcilably evil for decades" thing isn't just some trivially ignored thing. Some people do ignore it, but it's a big stretch to assume that's normal.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 01:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * only 6 years out of date ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 01:32, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. Still that poll is 1 in 2 for religion. Many non-affiliated people believe in God, so it is really more than that.Ariel31459 (talk) 01:44, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * so what if it is? its the christian religion that is the basis for most of the prejudice against lgbt in the us and the west, and particularly the arguments against marriage equality (i loathe the phrase 'same sex marriage' - it sets apart as something different to hetero version) AMassiveGay (talk) 13:21, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think I have made clear what my point is. More generally, minorities are not majority atheist. Another example of this unexpected behavior is that the Christian religion condoned slavery, and black Americans are overall quite dedicated to Protestantism, the religion of their captors. Ariel31459 (talk) 15:34, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * i'm not sure that you have. what is so wrong with ridiculing the beliefs of those who use those beliefs to oppress others? if some are 'alienated' because of it then fuck them. they should face up to whats said in their name. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:06, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait...did I say there was something wrong? No, I checked, I said a majority of LGBTQ might not be comfortable with withering criticism of religion on this kind of page. I am not telling you what to believe. Yes, they should face up to what is said in their name, just like you should face up to what is said in this wiki may offend people whom we otherwise would not want to offend. I am not offended. I don't care to be offensive either. It doesn't fucking bother me unless, as in this case it makes the wiki appear really fucking sophomoric. Even then, I didn't write it. I am not responsible for the idiocy of others. I just feel an obligation to point it out. Finally, if your attitude is fuck religions, I tend to agree. If it is "fuck the majority because they happen to be religious people," I can't go there.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:51, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Mass shooting in two mosques in New Zealand
CNN: https://edition.cnn.com/2019/03/14/asia/christchurch-mosque-shooting-intl/index.html

"At least 49 people have been killed and 20 seriously injured after gunmen opened fire in two mosques in the New Zealand city of Christchurch Friday, a coordinated and unprecedented attack that has shocked the usually peaceful nation." Thinker(unlicensed) 09:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * One of the shooters published a nazi manifesto, a la Anders Breivik and Dylan Roof. Hannasanarion (talk) 13:47, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Turns out he's also a memer. He reportedly shouted "Remember lads, subscribe to Pewdiepie!" during the shooting. Felix has already responded in a tweet. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 15:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that clearly seals the "meme nazis are just as bad as 'real' nazis" question. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * He also apparently referenced the "remove kebab" meme, which is brought about some soul searching in the Paradox games subreddits. 15:11, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem is, Nazis use memes to hide in plain sight. They can write racist and violent shit and then claim that it's just a joke when confronted. Most people use jokes as jokes, but some of them are serious about it. 15:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I told them. I fucking told him.
 * For context, my friend and I both play Paradox games together (CK2 and HoI4), and at one point we discussed the phrase "Remove kebab." I told him that it's a little uncomfortable because of the Schrödinger's Nazi problem, and he responded that the meme itself was just a harmless Polandball reference. Well, now look at it. On the plus side, I get to prove him wrong.
 * Oh, and props to the Paradox subreddit for cracking down on the phrase. RoninMacbeth (talk) 15:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "The problem is, Nazis use memes to hide in plain sight."
 * Nazis don't hide, they are very proud of their ideas. This attack was very well planned, by a man who is evil and smart. Blaming memes doesn't make sense: essentially all young people, especially gamers, "meme" in some way, and most memes have nothing to do with racism or violence. This remember me of when comic books, and then videogames, were accused of making the young violent. Thinker(unlicensed) 17:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * They fucking do both. Get out of here with that shit.  Some hide behind plausible deniability and/or isolated anonymous communities, and quietly radicalize people, and some are sufficiently radicalized to commit mass murder openly.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Jokes don't actually cause violence. People don't look at some hitler memes then go and blow up a synagogue. They read it and laugh not because they're nazi but because it's funny.
 * Given that, no, this exact fucker did almost exactly that, go home rethink your entire worldview. There's only one kind of good nazi.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:55, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * My take on it is that it first starts as "joking" or a "meme", but you're receptive enough to find it funny and spread it around in the first place. As with all memes, they lose their "joke" power quickly and you start believing the crap you spread around. It's like Argumentum ad nauseam but for yourself. I don't think I'm part of those circles that meme about racist and violent crap though, and I wouldn't last long either, so maybe my take is wrong or incomplete. 19:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I can't help but feel that while that may be true, humor is thought to be a mechanism of in-group identification. People normalize towards it because that's its social function.  It doesn't need to be good or clever humor to fill that role, and when it's right-wing it's innately hateful in a way that drives out people who don't care for it.  Every community either bans those (who are mostly conservatives) who post "haha only serious" bullshit, it descends into being an awful hellscape of bullshit.
 * It doesn't help that, yeah, nazis secretly and directly planned to use sites of disaffected mostly young mostly men with low moderation to actively use this strategy to promote their ideology through pseudohumor and plausible deniability.  There's ample documentation to this effect by way of leaked nazi discord conversations and editorial style guides from the daily stormer.  It's insideous because it's meant to be.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * there is very little difference to posting shitty racist memes because they are funny and posting them because you are a racist prick. in both cases you are a prick posting shitty racist memes. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Pardon my ignorance, but is Nazis trying to brainwash and recruit really new besides the technological advancements of access to information? How can we assess the harm caused? How many terrorist attacks motivated by the spread and subculture lingo of white supremacist beliefs were carried out prior to the establishment of high-speed internet? How was getting information like before the rise of the internet, if any of you are old enough to remember (I'm certainly not old enough, I'm only 24). 21:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * how widespread do you think it was before the internet? how would you, if you were a nazi of some description, find info about far right causes, find like minded people? sadly this is the world we live in AMassiveGay (talk) 22:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Nazi skinheads were a problem in the punk scene in the 1990s (sometimes a "start-shit violence for the sake of it" type of problem) and I've heard it was even worse in the 1980s. I have no idea how they found each other, but they did. I witnessed some asshole climb on stage at a Sick Of It All show in the early 1990s and attempt a Heil Hitler salute, only to be gangtackled and violently thrown off the stage... complete with a speech from the lead singer after the song saying something like "if you want to fuck cows, don't fuck cows on my stage". So, yes, this is not *that* new. I do wonder if the Internet amplifies the phenomenon by compartmentalizing groups, but I'm not sure. The opposite is also possibly true: previously, the racist tended not to spout their dribble as much onto forums of permanent record. Now, we have all the Facebook, Twitter, and 8chan postings to sort through, and for some reason people don't seem to realize these are public forums yet. (I *am* sad that nerd culture via Gamergate has been infected by a small, minority incel loudmouth, that is something drastically different from the earlier times.) Soundwave106 (talk) 05:04, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd imagine it'll be like an underrated threat and not super well known, but might be more common than you think even back in the days. I figure that if you look hard enough, you'll find far-right sympathies, especially if you're all economically down-trodden (as I think the rise of the alt-right has roots in Great Recession as how Nazism has some roots from Great Depression). Kind of like how Hitler rose, he listened to far-right recruitment people. It's just a lot easier these days if you do a quick search and how the media talks about them (but hasn't the media talked about them too earlier?). I sometimes do feel that while it's easier I also feel the results might not be be so different for the hard-ended ones. 23:11, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * sure it existed before, but how did it spread? word of mouth, a friend of friend. in one the links it mentions it was all very face to face, with the odd flyer on on your windscreen. its not like you could have just approached people in the pub without getting your head kicked in. and often, in many locales at least, anything resembling an organisation would be illegal. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:37, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * hitler also had the advantage of most decent people not knowing or realising that nazis were and are poison AMassiveGay (talk) 23:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * these days, all the fucknuts on internet are normalising these shite.AMassiveGay (talk) 23:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you guys really taking seriously the "memes recruiting Nazis conspiracy" ?
 * I found online the "manifesto" of the attacker: (REDACTED). It could be interesting digging into it, especially in the prospective of writing a RW page on the attack. Thinker(unlicensed) 23:02, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * i've no intention of downloading a pdf of that shit onto my laptop, ta AMassiveGay (talk) 23:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Calling things conspiracy theories when there's Direct primary source evidence with well-established chains of custody is a bit shit. And by a bit shit, I mean go fuck yourself and shut the fuck up.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 00:44, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

This is a dreary topic. ikanreed and AMG don't seem like it either. I don't get this meme business. Is someone claiming cold-blooded killers wouldn't kill if everyone used the right sort of language? Ariel31459 (talk) 01:39, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The implication that there are people who are innately "cold blooded killers" who act purely on internal whim is way fucking stupider than even earnestly believing your gross misrepresentation of what I said is true. It's pure magical thinking.  Propaganda exists and works, and that's not a particularly unreasonable point to make.  But what you said just now?  Pretty damn unreasonable.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 02:01, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * So that white guy who killed a bunch of white people in Las Vegas, he was influenced by propaganda? Yeah, that sounds magical.Ariel31459 (talk) 15:43, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * thats just fucking dogshit. he didnt say what influenced him and just how relevant is he to someone with an admitted far right world view? what it is you are saying here, that people arnt influenced by they the things they see and do? AMassiveGay (talk) 16:16, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry for being unclear. I am saying that some people will kill without remorse. An idea may well direct them to kill a particular victim. Psychopaths often kill people. Sociopaths can convince themselves it makes sense to kill someone in that they profit by it, say for example killing to collect on insurance. I am saying that polite speech will not likely lower the murder rate. If you think that's dog shit, then you clearly have never owned a dog. Finally, I am saying that people who would do such a terrible thing are already dangerous before being exposed to any set of ideas.Ariel31459 (talk) 18:10, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * sorry for my tone. i just dont see the relevance here when motive is clear and unambiguous. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:05, 16 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I read the manifesto. It's very snarky and superficially smart-sounding in a way that would appeal to an adolescent looking for cues on how to be a cool guy who takes shit from nobody. Memes are an ingredient, but the attitude is what does the damage. Millennium Scallion (talk) 02:50, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Another thing this attack shows is that anything less than the death penalty is an inadequate response by the aggrieved nation in which this sort of thing happens. People who oppose the death penalty worry that the innocent might be convicted and killed. This is usually a specious argument against my actual position. I don't think that the death penalty ought to be routinely applied to every murderer. But for a mass murderer with a manifesto, there usually isn't much point in arguing whether the accused in the dock is the person who did it. And those are the mass murderers who ought to be sentenced to die. You might doubt their sanity; you very seldom doubt that the government has the right defendant. In cases like this nothing else is adequate. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 02:52, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Why is it the only option? Why doesn't imprisonment work? RoninMacbeth (talk) 02:58, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It isn't a matter of what 'works' or 'doesn't work'. I'm not claiming that the death penalty has a 'deterrent effect' or any such thing.  Again, it's a matter of proportionality.  In a world where you can get sent to prison for ten years for stealing a can of beer, imprisonment even for life is simply an inadequate response to a crime of this heinousness in my opinion. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 03:35, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Personally I think both options are inadequate. On the one hand, locking them up for life does nothing since most only regret getting caught, if that. On the other hand, killing them off is just petty vengeance which gives nothing of any real substance to anyone involved. Neither option pays the debt the perpetrator has invoked, and neither really changes anything in the grand scheme of things. 03:54, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, if I recall correctly, there was a provision in a failed death penalty abolishment proposition in California back in 2016 that had to require criminals to provide reparations for the victim's family and loved ones along with lifetime imprisonment, so that concept of paying debt isn't mutually exclusive to lifetime imprisonment without parole. 21:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree. First, I believe that the 10-year sentence for stealing beer is unjust and should be changed. Furthermore, I believe that the killing of another human being is such an extreme action that its use should be avoided at all costs. If it doesn't deter crime, then there is no reason for the state to take a person's life, unless he is actively threatening even more lives and there is no means of nonlethally subduing him. RoninMacbeth (talk) 04:09, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * new zealand does not have a death penalty. this is merely revenge fantasy that serves no reasonable purpose here or elsewhere. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:56, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * even more pointless is that most people who commit this kind of crime dont 'come peacefully' - they are usually killed in the process. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Once he started shooting I watched about 30 seconds of the playback before I swallowed my guts and let everyone else watch it. Fuck off with that, I'm crying just thinking about it later. I can't unsee what I've seen, but fuck off with that.Gol Sarnitt (talk) 07:03, 16 March 2019 (UTC)06:47, 16 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Anyway, the attacker explicitly rejects the label of Nazi or neo-Nazi. He called himself a Fascist or more precisely Eco-Fascist (Environmentalist is written in the logo of his manifesto) and says that the nation with the closest political and social values to his own is the People's Republic of China (which is Communist). He also says that Oswald Mosley (leader of the British Union of Fascists) is the person from history closest to his own beliefs, that he supported Trump as a symbol of renewed white identity and common purpose, but absolutely not as a policy maker and leader. Thinker(unlicensed) 09:17, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * soo white supremacist then? nazi enough in my book. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:56, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * So, he's a White Supremacist who is politically Fascist? So... He's a Nazi... 13:04, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * and oswald mosley, a man for whom hitler was a guest at his wedding, a british nazi, is closest to his owen beliefs. what are we to make of that? AMassiveGay (talk) 13:13, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "soo white supremacist then? nazi enough in my book."
 * I haven't read enough to see if he is a white supremacist (for what I read it, he seems mostly of the idea that races should be separated, without saying one is better than the other. Is the term "segregationist"?). A racist and an ethno-nationalist by his own admission. However, could you guys just be a bit less superficial and stop conflating every bad ideology with Nazism? There are hundred of other terrible ideas around. I'm not an expert of history, sociology, politics, etc. but I guess that the analysis of the actually experts are more complex than "It's a Nazi!" Of course, I expect that somebody would understand nothing of what I said and assume I'm now defending Nazism... Thinker(unlicensed) 14:36, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * oh no those poor misunderstood nazis. it as good a description for this prick as any, except to most idiotic of apologists. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:43, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * an admitted racist and ethno nationalist is the crux of this and whatever else he describes himself is irrelevant, nuance adds nothing to this except at best pedantry and at worst apology AMassiveGay (talk) 14:47, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "...A racist and an ethno-nationalist by his own admission. However, could you guys just be a bit less superficial and stop conflating every bad ideology with Nazism?" Now you're just making shit up. If someone meets the criteria for label X, then label X applies. Nazism is a mixture of white supremism and Fascism, with a touch of Antisemitism thrown in, though the latter can in many cases be part of the white supremacist rhetoric. "Ethno-Nationalist" is PR speak for White supremacist, one of the weasel words and dog whistles they hide behind. "...I'm not an expert of history, sociology, politics, etc. but..." It shows. I actually study behavioral classification as a hobby, and guess what? Fascist + White supremacist = Nazi. It's like trying to argue that Mormons aren't Christians, they are, they meet the basic requirements (Jesus, God, Bible, salvation etc) for that label to apply. Or that "Intelligent Design" isn't Creationism. "Of course, I expect that somebody would understand nothing of what I said and assume I'm now defending Nazism..." You are, whether you intend to or not the result of you're pedantry is the defense of a Nazi. 15:11, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * it doesnt even need to be an exact precise definition. extreme racist authoritarian views is what a nazi is now. its how its used and its what it is now. you might as well say 'hes not a nazi because he made no mention of lebensraum'. its idiotic. the term nazi is still such poison that even nazis dont want to be nazis - they say alt right or some other bullshit concoction. they can call themselves what they want but we should still call them nazis. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:41, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "I actually study behavioral classification as a hobby, and guess what? Fascist + White supremacist = Nazi."
 * Nope, you should study better (and, by the way, Nazism goes below "political doctrines", not "behavioral classification".)
 * "it doesnt even need to be an exact precise definition"
 * OK, let's throw History in the garbage and let's call everything is bad Nazism, that well surely work out well... Thinker(unlicensed) 16:10, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * did you read the rest of the of what i wrote fucknut or were you too busy defending nazis? AMassiveGay (talk) 16:18, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "Of course, I expect that somebody would understand nothing of what I said and assume I'm now defending Nazism..."
 * "did you read the rest of the of what i wrote fucknut or were you too busy defending nazis?"
 * God, you are predictable... Thinker(unlicensed)
 * I created a page on the event, if somebody is interested to contribute. Thinker(unlicensed) 16:46, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * why should i be trying to surprise you? saying you expect to be called out on your nazi apologia doesnt somehow shield you from it you piece of shit. you could explain why i am wrong in this, you could answer any of the points made, but you chose not to. because you are a piece of shit AMassiveGay (talk) 17:17, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You have to learn the difference between "defending Nazism" and "saying that not all extreme racist authoritarian views are Nazism". Then maybe we can have a serious conversation on the topic. Thinker(unlicensed) 18:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * maybe learn to respond to actual points made. maybe learn that by any metric this guy is a nazi. maybe learn that denying that a nazi is a nazi gives them a free pass. maybe learn to stop beind such a disingenuous prick and then maybe we can have a serious discussion. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:59, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Since "fascism" and "nazism" are often used as synonyms, calling the guy a Nazi seems accurate enough. Not sure why this is such a major point though. Is this an "ISIS doesn't like being called ISIS so let's call them that" sort of thing? 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:6C5D:2EE2:4AFB:6C04 (talk) 19:08, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Gender bias in hiring
One study. And another. I'm away from my laptop on my phone so it's the best I can do. There are better ones if anyone feels like looking them up. One was a larger study. Shabi DOO  19:49, 16 March 2019 (UTC).
 * You linked the same study two times. Thinker(unlicensed) 22:08, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed. Corrected-diddly. Shabi  DOO  22:53, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Amazon scraps secret AI recruiting tool that showed bias against women It was because its training data was based on previous hiring decisions which were obviously quite biased against women (computers only do what they're told, and AI only replicate what they are shown). An interesting yet morbid phenomenon, technology replicating human biases. Féinléiriú (talk) 00:08, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Spud's latest Esperanto translation
I have just created the page Sankta Patriko, an Esperanto translation of the Saint Patrick article. That's my eighth translation, following my six previous Esperanto translations (Lewis Carroll (Esperanto), Guy Fawkes (Esperanto), Haloveno, Ĵakvo la Buĉisto, Kristnaska Viro and Oscar Wilde (Esperanto)) and my one Spanish translation (Papá Noel). I am saying this now because all of those article were created in draft space and then moved into main space, meaning that they did not show up on the new pages special page, so I have to make this announcement. I am also boasting. Spud (talk) 09:56, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Nice work. 14:57, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Spud! Bongolian (talk) 19:58, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Boasting is earned. Last I heard about Esperanto was... a long while ago.  I hope you do enemas next!  The page is killer long though, but when something involves anatomy, spero spero. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:43, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Between now and December I plan to translate the pages on Saint Christopher, Frankenstein, the yeti, Bigfoot, mermaids and the Gunpowder Plot into Esperanto. I also plan to translate the Santa Claus page into French and the Halloween page into French and Spanish. Folklore, history and literature. Those are things that interest me. Spud (talk) 04:15, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Power to you. I am not disappointed.  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 01:04, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I think Michigan State University is desperate for students
I keep hearing ads for MSU on the radio nonstop. With the fallout of the incident with perv doctor Larry Nassar and the fact that the university made it more difficult to report sexual abuse, many people are avoiding MSU. I rarely hear ads for University of Michigan. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 14:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I find that odd, given MSU is apparently reporting that they had their largest class ever this past fall. I'm guessing they're just trying to draw more in-state students, assuming you're in Michigan. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 15:30, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I was born, raised and live in Michigan. I don't see as many people who support Michigan State University anymore. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 16:38, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I live in Ohio. Fuck Michigan. — Oxyaena   Poke me  13:52, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * fuck you too buddy. Michigan is better than you Ohio cunts. Now, I was not talking about which state was better. I was talking about University attendance after a sexual abuse scandal. P.S- don't start an insult war you can't win. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 21:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * PS You might not want to refer to other people by the word of country matters. — Oxyaena   Poke me  03:35, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Tudor England was "a bustling scene of ethnic diversity"
They analysed a tooth from the Mary Rose and found it was possibly from a North African. Bluebird (talk) 09:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It's well known that there's long been a minority of black and other non-white ethnic groups in the UK, in the 16th century and even before. One source estimates perhaps 1000 black people in England by the end of the 16th century. While this discovery is interesting, it's not surprising - ships have long taken on crews from around the world in every port they visit (although ships' crews are likely to be more diverse than the population of England). --Annanoon (talk) 10:25, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * So race is a valid concept after all? Bluebird (talk) 10:41, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Ethnicity=/=race Hannasanarion (talk) 13:48, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


 * So when people work out that somebody is African from skeletal remains that is about ethnicity and not race? Or how about this, it's ethnicity when it's negative for White people, and race when it's positive for White people. Sound about right pal? You're just an anti-White liar and you belong in a ditch. 82.132.215.156 (talk) 14:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I've blocked you for three days for threatening another user. I'd like to think you'll use that time to reflect on your actions, but I know you won't, and will likely attempt to evade the block to spew more drivel. 15:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 18:52, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sailors got around more than other folks in the 16th century. Who knew? Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 16:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * See also: Middle Ages, "Africans in European Art", and "A Spectrum From Slaves to Saints: ‘African Presence in Renaissance Europe,’ at Walters Museum" Bongolian (talk) 18:01, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * why are you turning an archaeology discussion into racism? --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 22:02, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Did you read the Middle Ages section? The alt-right has been falsely claiming that Europe was pure-white until recent times. Bongolian (talk) 06:46, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * @Rationalzombie94 Racism? What does that even mean. Race exists when Britain is "diverse" because of one guy on a ship. Race doesn't exist when Africans have a low IQ. When I point out this contradiction it's "racism". ???? 82.132.212.205 (talk) 08:26, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You know, it sucks when you're smart enough to predict people's actions with disturbing accuracy, since most of those people are morons. 13:19, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Names of Nationalist Texts
Do you have any for me ? I'm supposed to start acting like a fascist now.
 * How I Lost my Mind by I.M Stueped and Online Fascism by T.R. Loll. 00:42, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This coming from the man calling himself a communist
 * This coming from someone stooping to petty trolling. 00:51, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * block the prick already AMassiveGay (talk) 00:53, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Fine... But I resent losing my new plaything and will file a formal complaint with the Party. 00:55, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

What is preventing you from escaping atheism and freeing yourself?
I know. There are probably several factors that prevent you from dumping godlessness and freeing yourself, but what would you say is the biggest one?Kingdamian1 (talk) 16:36, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The fact that I DO believe in gods, multiple ones, just not your tired intolerant sparrow-obsessed patriarch. Pere Ubu (talk) 20:06, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , Now that you've had your mop restored, try doing something useful and not being such a troll. Bongolian (talk) 17:06, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 17:15, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "Godlessness" is somehow bad but I suspect would not like my Gods (I am a proud Pagan). Better be the Abrahamic God I assume? --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:35, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I find the question confusing. As an atheist I am already free of religious indoctrination.Hubert (talk) 18:58, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I mean, yeah, you've got to move onto the next step of "now that I've adequately perused the question and certified to myself religion is totally full of shit, I should stop wasting my time deconstructing it and decide how I actually want to change the world for the better". ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:01, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There are many forms of atheism and agnosticism - and heavens even for them. Anna Livia (talk) 19:05, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "I mean, yeah, you've got to move onto the next step"
 * I agree. I would say that you gotta find the next god to kill. Thinker(unlicensed) 20:24, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The fact that I don't believe in a god. That's literally what atheism means. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪) 22:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Damian grows dull. A sad provocateur that I feel sorry for. Shabi DOO  23:31, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Damian thinks that we want to switch to his belief system. 😂😂😂 I certainly won't. No sane person would. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 02:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That is the trademark of the faithful, is it not? Everyone really wants to be just like me, some don't know it yet. RoninMacbeth (talk) 02:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * While most of us enjoy comparing and debating our various ethical/belief systems and worldviews. And if the deity/deities wanted us to have one religion we wouldn't have been provided with so many hymn sheets. Anna Livia (talk) 11:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I would modestly propose that it is the music that now infects your camp, my friend. At least from a European historical perspective, religion had a much better case for the Holy Spirit when composers like Haydn and Handel were by their sides. Nowadays, it is the maudlin (like the Hillsong crap) that is supposed to give me inspiration. Frankly, I would not be inspired by such nonsense even after drinking large quantities of a Holy Spirit. Soundwave106 (talk) 12:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Simple. What stops me from rejoining Christianity, is the content of Christianity. 13:02, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * And for me it is all the Christians. Their beliefs not making any sense is another big factor too.  MirrorIrorriM (talk) 14:25, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Mostly facts, logic, and not wanting to support an omnicidal manic with the power of a god. Commie Lib (talk) 18:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I ditched traditional Christianity twice (long story). I am happy with my path. The way Christians view their Bible makes no sense, they way the Bible is written implies two totally different Gods. What do you expect though? How many times throughout history was the Bible translated an rewritten? That happened for over 1000 years. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 21:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I would like to hear an account of a god intervening in somebody's life, and some explanation as to why it must have been a god, and not some normal working of society or probability. I mean, let's say if God saved you from dying in a car crash, what about all the people who worked to make cars safer and all the people who have died in a car?  I'm willing to get more abstract than that.  If faith and acts are the path to a suitable afterlife, who is the arbiter of the gate to that afterlife?  If there needs be a gatekeeper, then what does corporeal morality matter?  We can't decide what's right or what's wrong if the gate is kept by something we don't understand.  But if there is no gate, we have every right to decide what is right or wrong.
 * I was a self described soft-agnositic deist in high school. But then I was asked what that matters, how that position affects the world.  Well, there's a higher power we can't understand, and I am in awe of it.  OK, so when a magician performs a really good trick, do you believe the magician is magic?  No.  So does that mean that maybe, this higher power that we can't understand isn't magic?  Yeah, but it's what's not explained.  Does the magician explain his magic?  ...Not usually.
 * So what is the difference between believing in an active deity and just some god? The active deity bamboozles you, and reinforces that anything outside of your worldview must be magical.  The passive deity at least doesn't give a shit when you refuse that line of reasoning, but also falls to the invisible gardener argument.  If the garden grows, and the claim is there's an invisible gardener taking care of the garden, and his actions can't be bothered or stopped or measured or caught, what is the difference between having an invisible gardener and no gardener at all? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 01:31, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * OOH!! OOH!! PICK ME TEACHER!! I KNOW!! I KNOW!! 01:36, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, ok, settle down. So there's no God or afterlife, please add to the discussion. EDIT: From a base standard that morality and purpose exist.  Does morality/purpose come from a higher power that deigns and designs morality and purpose?  Does a higher power seem to exist but does not deign or design what seems like morality/purpose?  Does no higher power exist, but morality/purpose exist despite?  Resident nihilist, not your God-damned teacher. I should set up an 8 values style site and just cash on this.  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:48, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The main one would be the complete lack of actual evidence for gods - for example I give to you the crappy behavior of human beings in general which religious belief does absolutely nothing to improve. I guess you might call that comon sense really. What is it do you think traps people in such useless beliefs as religion, or white supremism, or any other useless doctrinaire?  Aloysius the Gaul 20:08, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

A Linguistic Problem with Nuclear Power
I've noticed people have started to complain that nuclear energy should have been green lighted a while ago, but it was the greenies who shut it down and now we always needed it. Green Peace is apparently kicking themselves over nuclear energy. The problem I have, is that the people talking about this call it "Nukular power" and say the people behind shutting it down should have learned the science. This is wholly frustrating to me. Now, I agree that the fear about Nuclear energy was overblown, as far as Nuclear power needs regulation, and a decent mitigation of waste plan. The problems are shown by countries that just kinda slap that tech together. {redacted for clarity, I'm drunk} Nuclear power plants have a whole list of requirements and problems that need regulating, but they kinda got a bad wrap, but to say "Nukular" power should have been implemented years ago, forgive me while my eyes roll back into my head so hard that my optic nerves snap. Don't want that kinda support. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:35, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? We have employed nuclear energy for over two generations now. A legitimate concern is the disposal of nuclear waste, though it must be pointed out that nuclear waste is currently collected for storage rather than pumped out into the natural environment. We might be able to (1) recycle wastes in the future, and (2) come up with new designs that are safer and more efficient. Nerd (talk) 15:05, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you annoyed that people pronounce nuclear "nucular"? Because Jimmy Carter the only US President who was actually a nuclear reactor engineer pronounced it that way. I think nuclear power has bigger problems, like being way more expensive than other much easier methods of power generation (even if hydro-electric and arguably solar have killed more people). --Annanoon (talk) 23:21, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * When the oceans rise and the climate zones move people may reconsider the way that human and financial costs were previously calculated.Hubert (talk) 13:19, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No. Onshore wind and hydro are much cheaper than nuclear. --Annanoon (talk) 14:36, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Nuclear waste poses one of the most interesting problems in linguistics. That stuff will need to stay buried for more than ten thousand years.  Assuming there are any, it's unlikely that people that far out in the future will easily understand contemporary languages or cultural symbols.  How do you communicate that the waste is dangerous and ought to be left alone, without also making it spooky and interesting? Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 17:25, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd say make the sites as plain as possible. By that I mean not making them stand out. If some people happen to get inside, there should be plenty of warning. Should they choose to persist, it's their problem. Also, nuclear wastes can be recycle several times before having to be disposed of, at which point they are a lot less radioactive, enough to make your Geiger counter click, but not enough to be used as fuel. Nerd (talk) 17:39, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sorry, I was a little past drunk for this one, had a painful conversation and lashed out at the ever-forgiving-internet. Points taken, I do agree that nuclear waste is the biggest problem with nuclear, and again, frustratingly, the people who want to laugh off the traditional greenie opposition to plants are the same that want to deregulate everything from schools to hospitals to prisons.  "Let's just launch it into space!"  Screw that up once, and see how it works out.  So instead we bury it in a mountain.  I'm pro nuclear, but the pro-nuclear shift in America is bubbling up from the scariest people to hand any energy-extraction rights over to.  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 01:41, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Discord sysops
,, There seems to be a trend here of people starting on Discord, creating an account here and then almost immediately getting Sysop (e.g., , ). I do not want to join Discord, so I don't know what's going on there. I don't think that it's unreasonable that these people make the same minimal effort as everyone else: make some decent contributions for Autopatrolled rights, and spend a few days here making contributions for Sysop rights. Also, please use the " ~ " for Autopatrolled on the new user's talk page (and " 1~ " for new Sysop). Bongolian (talk) 01:22, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * My philosophy to sysop tools is very simple. If they won't vandalize with it, they should have it. If I know someone already then I don't need to wait to see if they are a vandal. 01:52, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The RW Discord server is a funny one, it has over 700 members but I would say less than 30 are actually users here. But yeah, I don't think its unreasonable to want a few edits before demotion. --RWRW (talk) 02:03, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree with RWRW and Bongolian. Though once they prove themselves, demote ASAP. RoninMacbeth (talk) 02:57, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Ditto w/RW, Bongo, and RM. (even though I'm not a mod). ℕoir LeSable (talk) 15:17, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * i wrote an article already, what is ur problem? EK (talk) 21:33, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * And specifically, dysk, I'd say that approach has absolutely led you to sysop vandals on at least one occasion. And that choice, in turn, is one willy-on-wheelsesque script-user away from catastrophe that takes ages to clean up, not to pull a BEANS, but think about how long it would take the mods to fix a script that just promoted every sysop in order of most recent edit then banned them. It wouldn't take very long, even if it's throttled, to get the whole damn active userbase.  We treat sysop tools a bit like a joke, but don't go too far.  Actual anti-shithead evaluation is crucial.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 04:33, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This is exactly why it's a good idea to sysop trusted people I know well rather than randoms who have made a few good edits. 10:45, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If we have a reason to trust them, what's the point? — Oxyaena   Poke me  07:32, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * do you though? ive seen some of the invites AMassiveGay (talk) 12:07, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Concur. I don't think anyone would enjoy the rigmarole of it, but I think if it happens more we should seriously consider making unwarranted mopping an abuse of sysop powers.  If it happens out of sight of the active editor community, it's not good process.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:03, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I guess it depends whether we want a process for sysoping, since there has never been one and there really shouldn't be. Nobody has ever been required to give a rationale for sysoping before and I consider that an important part of how mobocracy here works. 16:23, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

While it's true that there are no formal rules for demotion, there have been informal rules, to wit: Don't put the "welcome" sign up on someone's talk page unless they're obviously not a spammer (meaning at least one edit that's not obviously bad) 2) Don't Autopatrol someone who hasn't at least made a few non-stupid/non-spam edits 3) Demotion generally shouldn't happen until at least a couple of days worth of quality edits (i.e., not just fixing spelling/grammar/formatting). If people disagree with this and/or think that rules should be codified, I'd be all for codifying some rules. It's been a point of dispute at least once before (e.g., when was demoted). Bongolian (talk) 22:50, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Request
Does anyone here speak fluent Japanese, because a Japanese Discord user brought to my attention recently that we, the wiki, should have an article on this one Japanese Nanking and Holocaust denier, his name being. In the user's own words, "He's vile." Thanks in advance. — Oxyaena   Poke me  15:44, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Is the Japanese discord user unwilling to do it? 15:57, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * He only speaks semi-fluent English, so no, he's not willing to. He himself admitted he wouldn't be the best choice, and so he's decided to just stick to alerting us to rJapanese right-wing fucks. On second thought, though, there is one I could contact.... — Oxyaena   Poke me  15:59, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I know some Japanese, I don't mind doing something on it. 19:06, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Riddle
If bread leads to toaster, and toaster leads to toast, does bread lead to toast?

I would think this to be a valid logical formulation, but it appears to me to rest upon a case of conditional logic, in order for it to be logically true it needs to meet a certain set of criteria, the criteria in this case being if the bread in question was meant to be toasted, and if a toaster was going to be used to toast the bread in question. So, does bread lead to toast? — Oxyaena   Poke me  14:02, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * As you said, it's conditional. If bread = future toast, then bread leads to toaster then to toast.  However, if bread =/= future toast, then bread does not lead to toaster or toast.  Personally, I'm more concerned if bread leads to crumbs, but I guess that's because I just passed the cleaning lady... Kencolt (talk) 21:44, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The logic is sound, but because the premises aren't actually true, the logic being sound is irrelevant to the conclusion being true. That's true of 100% of logic, including the most basic and intuitively true mathematics.   ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The argument is valid, but unsound, because the premise is untrue.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:56, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay fine. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:57, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it is a pretty good analogy for the exponential growth idea. It's not a theory because it's not true, but I'd agree it does kinda look that way.  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:04, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Well... it seems I'm becoming one of those Old People
Soon to be 30 years of age? Check.

Looks at 90s stuff on YouTube and wishes he could go back? Check.

Thinks some music was better back then (drum and bass/jungle specifically)? Check.

Wants things to slow down a little? Check.

Sick and tired of all the tish going on in the world? Big effing check.

Well that's that then. get off my lawn... I guess. Towards-the Unknown (talk) 05:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * only someone who doesnt remember the 90s would be nostalgic for it (the pop culture at least). it was wank. AMassiveGay (talk) 09:59, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll take wank over whatever fresh hell this century is any time. D: Towards-the Unknown (talk) 05:48, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The 1990s (more like the later half into the early 2000s) actually are IMHO a good candidate for a "golden age of electronic dance" category. Especially given the DnB note, I'll allow it. The more universally agreed upon "golden age of hiphop" was within the earlier part of this decade, and in the middle of the decade, the corporate pop end for some reason decided to throw a few of those artists who previously languished on college radio into mainstream pop, making things there more interesting. I wouldn't rank the 1990s above the late 1960s-mid 1970s pop music wise, but I think it averaged better than say the late 1980s (hair metal! Vanilla Ice! Milli Vanilli!) or most of the pop music scene since about 2005 or so. Soundwave106 (talk) 13:10, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Pffft. I'm 61.  Contemporaneous with the Beatles, Zeppelin, and Yes.  I know music was better then and so do most historians.  Somethings need slowing, some need speeding, I've seen near-'bout all the speeds and can compare.  Grew up when change started and so have the experience to know that it never happens instantly-- no matter what anyone says they're gonna do.


 * Kid, you ain't earned a lawn yet. Kencolt (talk) 11:45, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * i came of age in the 90s. i remember it well and it leaves me cold AMassiveGay (talk) 12:05, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Well, I was referring to Mr T-tU, actually, but... AMG, you might have half a lawn. Kencolt (talk) 12:16, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * What about the good part of the 90s, the internet wasn't expansive enough for us to see all the shitheads all the time. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:04, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * i refer mainly to the pop culture aspects of the 90s. though without the internet, i would most probably be dead. AMassiveGay (talk)
 * I... uh... sorry. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:10, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * thats not hyperbole, but best not dwell on it. my point being that for the reasons the internet has fucked things up ie. giving voice to the fucknuts of the world, and letting them find others and group up, it also does the same for more innocent pursuits or for marginalised and oppressed people. its a godsend for that. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia alone makes the internet worth it. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 15:39, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There was 'an article somewhere a while back' which listed a number of activities that meant you had 'properly grown up.' One of the points was 'watching the news channel' - and someone said that one of the reasons people did so was because they had gone through all the other channels and found nothing worth watching - cookery programs, repeats of repeats, selling channels etc etc etc. Anna Livia (talk) 16:27, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Ah yes, the "news channel" a concept that didn't even fucking exist until 1980, a hallmark of healthy development. Farenheit 451 is the most prophetic book ever written, and it's so weird everyone focuses on the book burning. It's all but irrelevant to the actual themes. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:34, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Whatever the number of TV channels the total amount of material you actually wish to watch remains constant (and if you look at TV pages of the past quite often there is 'nothing one wishes to watch).
 * 'The media'/moral panicers and suchlike are likely to focus on the 'material that indicates civilisation-as-we-know-it is coming to an end/being corrupted worse than (Nero and Caligula/Marquis de Sade/everything Mary Whitehouse complained about' etc) and (cute kittens and cute baby goats/politicians having pratfalls etc) than on the-useful-to-harmless stuff (how to knit a theremin-cum-flying bedstead).
 * And there is a greetings card - growing old happens, growing up is optional. Anna Livia (talk) 17:08, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * we've always liked trash. we always will like trash. it just doesnt last so we dont remember. for every rocket man theres a dozen sugar sugars. there have been bodice rippers, penny dreadfuls. we remember mozarts and shakespeares but we forget anything hey nonny nonny. people work all day and struggle to pay the rent, feed the kids. what are you going to do when you get home? its not going to be a ken loach film. bradbury bitched about tv. it was professional jealously. AMassiveGay (talk) 01:31, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

@ikanreed News channels existed around the 60s(and maybe 50s ?). They just weren't biased garbage packaged as entertainment. People actually cared about the facts, not cheering whenever your guy scored a hit like it was a fucking no-holds barred cage match.
 * I would like to seek clarity about that. What news channels existed?  I honestly don't know of any devoted-to-news television channels before CNN.  Even relatively information focused things like public television only had a couple hours a day of news.  Maybe I'm being amerocentric?  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:25, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * no dedicated news channel in the uk till digital. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:25, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Dear God, We knew this day would come when people would be nostalgic for the Clinton era. We have sinned. Heal our land. Amen. nobsI'm all yea'res 03:59, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Homeopathy in the WHO?
I had never seen this before, but apparently the World Health Organization has an entire branch devoted to "...implementing action plans that will strengthen the role of traditional medicine..." https://www.who.int/traditional-complementary-integrative-medicine/en/ I find the prospect of pseudo-medicine infecting the WHO extremely worrying. Does anybody know the severity of this? MirrorIrorriM (talk) 20:04, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The WHO operates at the whim of its member states. China has been particularly responsible for backing the role of traditional medicine in international medical guidelines, partially because of the vested interests in selling traditional Chinese medicine both domestically and internationally.  I can't find any sources that will tell me which other members voted for the so-called "Beijing Declaration" that empowered the WHO to support traditional medicine.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:46, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The left hand also operates independently from the right hand. The International Agency for Research on Cancer, a branch of the WHO, declared Aristolochia to be a human carcinogen in 2002, but in 2010, WHO encouraged the use of Aristolochia by including it in a list of Ayurvedic medicines. Bongolian (talk) 20:59, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think more likely the right hand is rolling its eyes at the left hand that is blithely ignoring everything around it as it always has. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:14, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Would it be accurate then to say that the WHO is more a politically minded organization than a scientifically minded organization? MirrorIrorriM (talk) 10:09, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

It probably has dedicated scientists that are pissed off at this shit, but yeah WHO is definitely political. 2601:CA:8200:34A:5C61:FDEF:BD49:C265 (talk) 12:42, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The International Agency for Research on Cancer part of WHO is not political. They have a rotating staff of top-notch cancer scientists. Bongolian (talk) 17:52, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I made a debate
go check it out It'll be fun I promise. And you fucking mods better not delete my fucking page for "trolling the talk pages" because I'm not a fucking troll. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Debate:%22We_can%27t_save_the_white_race%22
 * Yeah, you kind of are. But what the hell, I'll keep you around, if for nothing else than to have another pet white nationalist. RoninMacbeth (talk) 17:06, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm fucking mixed-race.


 * Assuming you're not another sock of the IP 82.132.214.21, your argument is very easy to debunk; self-identified white people are still increasing in number despite lowish total fertility rates, for example if you take one country as an example, UK, with a TFR of 1.8: the 'White British' census category increased by 1.5 million people from 2001 to 2011 (2011 census data). Heck, even South Korea with a fertility rate of only 1.1 (lowest in world) still has population growth. How could this be? Quite simply because life expectancy in most countries is increasing; people are living longer and so there are less deaths than births each year. So even though European countries have lowish FTR and most Northeast Asian low FTR they're not shrinking in population but growing. This is why the white nationalism talking point about low fertility rates leading to "white genocide" is completely false and ridiculous- its also why white nationalists are part of the overpopulation problem since they're arguing to increase white fertility rates when there's unsustainable population growth even with low FTR's.Concerned (talk) 17:11, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I can smell the bullshit from hundreds of miles away. More racist arguments to go around. To the OP- don't try to represent white people, seriously. You make things bad for all sides. I personally distance myself from racist trash. 😓😓😓😓 --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:37, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

People de facto assume I'm white. Because I've been surrounded by whites my entire life and been assumed white, I find it hard to actually claim myself as mixed race. (I have some very light skin and only my noise gives away my mixed race ancestry). 2601:CA:8200:34A:5C61:FDEF:BD49:C265 (talk) 17:42, 21 March 2019 (UTC) (I signed my post you happy duce ?) Which means I'm white but technically not. Also when I was a young lad with my mother in the hood(before my white dad got custody) I saw lots and lots of violence. It took years before I was ready to hold a knife without seeing some gangbanger threatening some dude with a knife. 2601:CA:8200:34A:5C61:FDEF:BD49:C265 (talk) 17:46, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * So, self hating/renegade mixed race? Kidding, because that of white guilt is a typical suprematist talking point ;). But you can see parallels, about various leitmotifs like "why can't one be proud of being white?" with another evident false equivalency like "why isn't there a straight pride" or "straight people don't exibit all time they're straight", which on top of it require a high dose of hypocrisy! And I've seen that argument all time.82.84.218.213 (talk) 22:08, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It's aesthetics, my least favorite concept. Pick and choose things that are appealing, then judge all things on whether they appeal to your chosen aesthetic.  If you do it like some basic bitch, judging people by skin color is easy, and human biology and social structures are leaving you in the dust.  Sorry if you feel bad about it or if the Old Testament tells you it's the road to ruin, it's just not a viable option to be a racial purist.  EDIT: Whoops, sorry, still a little fiery.  I will still be whiter than bread with the crust cut off when that time comes.  Who were your parents? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:46, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

My ideas for new Sesame Street episodes (Joking with a dark sense of humor)

 * Nuclear Attack on Sesame Street
 * Zombie Apocalypse on Sesame Street.

Do you think TV networks would go for it? For the zombie apocalypse one- Big Bird gets eaten by a zombie Elmo. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:33, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

i think nuclear attack is a little lack luster. Go with zombie apocalypse. 2601:CA:8200:34A:5C61:FDEF:BD49:C265 (talk) 17:58, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Just go back to early 2000s newgrounds and post a flash video. They were all basically like this.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:01, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Remember when people would upload videos of stick figures shooting guns at each other with drum and bass playing in the background instead of lets play videos? Good times.  MirrorIrorriM (talk) 18:46, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * zombocom nostalgia. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:48, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Red Dawn on Sesame Street. 18:52, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Is Tupac a Democrat
I thought he was a Democrat is he? thanks Doubloon! (talk) 22:09, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

The rambling nature of manifestos
recent events have got me thinking about things, namely the rambling nature of the manifestos produced by people who commit atrocities. as odd as it may seem i think we have dodged a bullet with the recent one and indeed, all the previous ones - the far right ones at least. because these manifestos are rambling and inconsistent at best, the work of 'lone wolves' with dubious sanity, they can be easily dismissed. they inspire only the most fanatical, the most hate filled, and only those of questionable sanity.

What happens when the next one, sadly inevitable, what happens when the next one is carried out but by someone not so obviously touched, someone who can appeal to more than the internet basement dwellers and the fringes of 8chan or the more extreme manosphere types and produces a manifesto that is, while still likely hate filled trash, at least looks reasoned, looks like a valid grievance, something that inspires atrocities that could be more far reaching or at least more numerous than the still awful 'one shot' deals we currently have with these cunts?

I again stress this is more about far right terrorism than the obvious mirror of home grown radical islamic terrorism - i dont see any wars or drones strikes or government duplicity in foreign policy as an obvious radicalising agent - though there must commonalities.

is this a valid worry or is it, for want of a better word, paranoia? what could be mitigating societal factors that are preventing this outcome or speeding us headlong into it? ruby ridge and then waco seemed to set off or galvanised a whole bunch of conspiracy theories and the militia movement in the us, and that was pre internet. Now? with the internet, local events are global, all news is fake and the craziest theories are all true, fuelling a wave of right wing populism that seems to gain strength daily.

where do we go from here? AMassiveGay (talk) 00:43, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * They've definitely gone downhill since the days of the Unabomber. His screed was at least readable, and in parts cogent.  Breivik's manifesto was tiresome by comparison, entirely free from flashes of insight, and this most recent bozo's is just an embarrassment. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 01:25, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * we can be thankful that the unabomber's ideas lacked any kind of mass appeal. i am slightly buoyed by the failings of the idea of 'lone wolves' - they inevitable going to be loners or obvious loons. easy to radicalise, easy to spur on to some hideous deeds, but far from inspiring. the smart people, the charismatic people, are going to do the radicalising. they going to do the organising, if there is any where of this kind thing, sending out these dupes to kill. dupes who dont inspire, never gain any traction, become just dreadful footnotes. hopefully they remain a aberration and never anything more. AMassiveGay (talk) 01:49, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * i think as one offs, as aberrations, they can never succeed in whatever their claimed goals maybe. laws might come in, ultimately minor inconveniences that we quickly adapt to, but ultimately failing. they are one offs. a couple of weeks of media saturation. recriminations and hand wringing. then we get on with things. unless you are directly affected, or loved one is, its an abstract fear and they are few enough that disruption to our lives is short lived. despite the reach of the internet, the polarisation of society, the people who can do these things, physically and mentally capable to do these things is minute, in the scale of things. you would need an atrocity a week, amasacare a day, for any fears to become a real and tangible. for all the fears stoked in the press about far right extremists or radical islamists or anyone - there is just not enough of those willing to do these things to actually do these things. in places like iraq, even before isis, bombings and massacres were almost daily, but its not aggrieved citizens that produced that, it was war and the destruction of the government. i'm not in baghdad. i am in london. in the past couple years there have been 3 terrorist attacks within 5 minutes walking distance of my home, in places i regularly stroll through, where i have worked. i am not a hero. i am not brave. the only difference to my routine in any of theses things was i briefly checked the front door was locked. if we must remember these individuals who do these things in any way, it should be as abject failures. AMassiveGay (talk) 02:31, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that literary merit or intellectual coherence has much to do with success. Getting killed or arrested immediately isn't the way to build a following: you need to be able to do speaking tours, spread your message incrementally, build a following. Hitler's Mein Kampf is generally pretty awful (notwithstanding some entertaining bits), but he got a following in other ways after his release from prison. The prophet Muhammad is another example of someone who wrote a rambling, incoherent manifesto but started a highly successful armed revolt. On the other hand, Valerie Solanas's SCUM Manifesto is better-written and had some impact as a feminist text but didn't inspire a wave of cutting up men. Osama bin Laden was a talented speaker and propagandist (this is maybe forgotten today), and ISIS also ran a skillful media operation, but they found fertile ground only in nearly-destroyed nations. Ultimately, influence wasn't determined by the quality of their writing or of their ideas, but other societal factors. --Annanoon (talk) 12:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The Quran is a pretty high effort and coherent work in comparison to Mien Kampf, and of course those are both full length books and not really on the same level as a 80 page 8chan copypasta. I think the quality of the ideological work does matter when it comes to sustaining a movement. 13:15, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That's not true. ISIS attracted quite a large number of foreign recruits from non-Muslim countries and the West. Lord Aeonian (talk) 00:38, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * How large was that following in comparison to their recruits in the Levant, Iraq, and the rest of the Middle East? Like, of the estimated number of total IS IS fighters and collaborators, what proportion came from the West? RoninMacbeth (talk) 00:53, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * A reading of wikipedia and its cited sources on ISIS and foreign fighters says that, out of about ~50,000 foreign fighters, about 10,000 came from Europe and North Africa, with numbers also coming from non-Western but non-Islamic countries like China and Russia. There is a page on foreign fighters in ISIS which breaks down numbers for each Western country, I achieved the 10,000 figure but quickly adding the numbers up (for example, 1500 British citizens joined, 500 french citizens joined, etc). Many of them were converts to Islam and the main ISIS page notes that many were well educated and financially secure. Almost all seemed to have been motivated mostly by religion. Lord Aeonian (talk) 03:27, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree to some parts, theres definitely religious motives dictated by convenient interpretations of violent steps but also indissolobly interwoven with political motivations which can't be separated. Isis people are irredentist which want an ethnostate based on religion instead of race, with the relative theocratic political system. They also do terror attacks motivated by the idea of revenging the west and "crusades" wrongs and colonialism, specularly to how Breivik and his ilk pretend to revenge the wrongs of a whole ethnic group, the smallar London car attack outsid mosque, the Quebec shooting, are about the idea of reclaiming the land and purging the "invader" worldwide. If any the difference was with Breivik, who had a political target rather than the very ethnic group in itself, which is similar, in that aspect, partially to the Charlie Hebdo isis attack, a specific target seen as offender, though of course different blames are attributed to either one. These last attacks are instead more uncannily specular to Isis in targeting the very ethnic group. There are also the 2018 failed attack of the fascist Luca Traini in Italy, Macerata, attempting to gun down a group of Poc's, but failing, and of this last days March 20 '19, a senegalese school bus driver, burning it to flames attempting to kill the 50 children inside, but failing fortunately, this one in Milano. The alleged reason was to vindicate the people and children drown in the Mediterranean due to Salvini's politics. We can observe how religious fanatism basically just amplifies grouping and ingroup and outgroup dynamics in the surface of a political conflict, to the point of reasoning just on the base of whether one belongs in which group, of which any person belonging to it is up for punishment, some of ours for some of yours, basically, complete deindividualization and dehumanization. We instead see a tendency on bigoted hating but not acting on it people to dismiss act of people of one's own group as individual and those of the other group as inherent to that group's ideology to which it gets flattened and generalized. That's apparently empirically observable more on western people online (but not only) reactions, than on muslim communities, for reason which would be to long to insight on just this message, maybe the next, if you reply to this one ;). Sorry for the length.82.84.218.213 (talk) 18:15, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I've read his manifesto about 3 times now (My most recent read was an hour ago) and he's right in much of what he says. Yes, this corporate influenced migration is pulling down the prices of labor and it's going to get worse. Yes, the white race is soon going to be extinct because we're self hating dipshits afraid of responsibility. Yes, global warming is a threat(On a another I wanna point out how I don't think he was really a true fascist). Yes, it's all gonna go to shit. But it's not like you shooting up 2 mosques is gonna help. For this to truly effective it would have about 20 mass shootings where each shooter has the same uniform. (Like a crusader outfit). He fails to realize that modern society is just so desensitized to tragedy and really everything meaningful. Maybe I'm a psychopath, but did you really ,actually, and truly cared when you heard about it ? I mean real emotion, not just some facade we wear in order to feel normal. That's just my 2 cents.
 * He's right in much of what he says... Welcome to 90% of everyone on the internet... 13:05, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Christchurch terrorist attacks page
So, days ago I finally decided to contribute to the main space of RW by creating the page on Christchurch terrorist attacks. The page grew rapidly with users adding many interesting information, and vandalism was easily contrasted. Unfortunately, now I see that the entire section about the attacker manifesto has been removed and replace with just three sentences, because reasons... Conveniently, the new version doesn't mention that the attacker despise conservatism and hate capitalism, that he is an environmentalist, that he wants to push the left wing to abolish the Second Amendment; and it cuts his sentence about Trump to make it look more a supported of him.

I'll probably be quite busy in the next weeks, so I won't have time to discuss this on talk pages. This is my idea of what the section about the manifesto should be, IF someone cares:

A detailed analysis and debunk of what is written in the manifesto. Especially, highlighting the many contradictions (environmentalist and admiration for China, fascism and anti-imperialism...) and giving a honest portrait of the disturbed ideas of the attacker, not an image conveniently tailored for political purposes. Thinker(unlicensed) 08:18, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm of the opinion on the talk page: that the manifesto should not be highlighted too much, due to too many self-contradictions, shitposting, trolling, and the usual "rebelling with a cause but without a clue" you see on the extremes. The best indicator of true opinion to me is that the attacker posted on 8chan's /pol/, not /ecopol/ or /leftypol/. Keep in mind none of these aforementioned boards are too keen on capitalism or "traditional conservatism", either (there are some similarities between the extreme political philosophies), so an anti-capitalist / anarchisty type of opinion is not surprising. But the overwhelmingly dominant philosophy of /pol/ is white supremacy / white nationalism. If his big beef was ecological as his "eco-fascist" claim says, he would have not posted there, nor would his target be an Islamic mosque. (Personally I would support an additional sentence with a short summary of *just* how self-contradictory and confused his philosophy was, but IMHO we don't need to go into detail. /pol/'s the same way, it's often contradictory and confused, but in the end, it's a board for neo-Nazis.) Soundwave106 (talk) 13:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * he was only an 'environmentalist' (who the fuck isnt these days?) in the sense it was a stick to beat brown people with, to demonise non europeans. it was racism, pure and simple, at its heart and the only point of his manifesto worth mentioning. this all on the talk page. take it there and actually answer the points i made if you disagree. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:34, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This should be discussed on the talk page.Ariel31459 (talk) 14:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Stop shopping for support. Once you click through to the actual talk page, numerous people expanded quite reasonably on their "reasons" and you should argue with them.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:20, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "Stop shopping for support."
 * In the case you haven't yet understood it: I could not care less of your opinion, so better not wasting your time telling me what to do. Thinker(unlicensed) 15:52, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you agree it's specular to group or lone wolves self allegedly inspired to Isis or subscribing to it, some of whom have vague and confused ideas of general western wrongdoings, colonialism, war and invasion. Similarly this guy has some rechewed and recycled ideas of conspiracies of ethnic replacement. They both share the idea that an entire ethnic group down to any casual people in mosques of anywhere belonging to the target gruop is guilty, which is the extreme nationalist idea of spiritual collective will of nations, which can't be other than competing. Some argue that tribalism is innate, including some reddit atheist, I say this as an agnostic atheist myself so.. :D82.84.218.213 (talk) 18:28, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

In case anyone is interested
This NASA website gives instructions on how to spot the International Space Station each night. Just type in your city or scroll the map to see where and when it'll be visible for your area. I saw it once when I was a kid; it's pretty damn cool. 14:14, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Step 1, burn down all the strip malls that leave all their ad lights on all night just in case it makes you want to shop the next day. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:05, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * What a waste of taxpayer money - both the space station and paying some fool to maintain a website. If the damn shit was worth more than a pot to piss, why isn't it commercially viable? Wasting taxpayer money on Trekie's fantasies is statement on the sad state of society Cultural Marxism has given us. nobsI'm all yea'res 02:07, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The space station isnt' supposed to a commercial operation - it is a scientific research project. Acei9 03:22, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Why? Cause Hitler might build WMD first? Cause Khrushchev might beat us to the moon? nobsI'm all yea'res 03:43, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Not sure where this pent-up aggression is coming from, but the International Space Station has been used for a variety of differing experiments, including "advancements in medicine, technology and science." [...] "Growing protein crystals in a space environment can help scientists create better treatment for numerous diseases that currently have no cure." From here. There's also NASA itself, though navigating the sheer number of experiments will be daunting.TheTallMass (talk) 03:59, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * For the same reason they built the LHC - to understand the universe better because "God did it" is an unsatisfactory answer. Acei9 05:18, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * WHy ain't Big Pharma paying for the space station instead of us innocent taxpayers? nobsI'm all yea'res 06:47, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The space station is a multi-nation effort to better understand to cosmos and the universe we live in. It’s the same as the early monarchs providing money and resources to the early explorers such as Magellan and Columbus but on a greater scale. Rob, you’re a dick. Acei9 22:34, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Bullshit. John 3:16 says, "For God so loved the kosmos that he gave his only begotten son...", but Satan hijacked the term kosmos and brainwashed you into believing it means outerspace or anything other than you personally or humanity. nobsI'm all yea'res 00:41, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I been trollin those Conservatives
I been trollin the shit outta them they dont even know LOL http://www.conservativesforum.com/cgi-bin/conservatives-forum/YaBB.pl?num=1553125388 This the funnies thing everDoubloon! (talk) 23:16, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Anything else you want to add before I ban your clothy nylon ass off? 23:44, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I'm LogicNSock. Doubloon! (talk) 00:31, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Doubloon! (talk) 00:33, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Unban me now. You're getting as tired of this as I am, I know. Doubloon! (talk) 00:33, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Really? Do you have nothing better to do? I hope your ban is permanent if you think childish tactics are okay. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:07, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Really? Do you have nothing better to do? I hope your ban is permanent if you think childish tactics are okay. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:07, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Death threats from Mikey
Look Mikey, you've threatened my life three times now, and when I shrugged them off you tried going after someone else. Fight me, you sniveling little twat. Bring. It. On. Seriously, if you don't have the balls to do the deed, don't make the threats. Dumbass little snowflake twatwaffle. 03:24, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe he thinks your Oliver. What an idiot. — Oxyaena   Harass  03:51, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The day this guy gets shunted offline forever will be a fine day. 04:31, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I've no idea what you're talking about. You're paranoid. You wouldn't have the balls to talk to me on video, let alone meet me in person. You're a snivelling anti-white coward attacking our people from the safety of an anonymous online account. This website is nothing but one big anti-white lie by omission. All you do much like your compatriots in the mainstream media is hide information that demonises anybody but whites, as far from rationality as possible. You are the lowest type of scum and no punishment would be too severe. Bike Rider (talk) 08:24, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "Look Mikey, you've threatened my life three times now"
 * There's a policy against threatening. You should report the dead threats to the moderators so that they can proceed. Thinker(unlicensed) 09:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * We could always go along and Mod-suppress them, but other than that I don't think a Mod would be any more help than normal Sysops.--RWRW (talk) 12:40, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * As stated above, there isn't much that the Mods can do.  Fuck debate and fuck you. You never gave a crap about debate, you simpering little snot, you just want attention. But you know what? Fuck it, I'll see if the Non Sequitur show will host us, if you aren't banned from there too. There will however, be rules. Chiefly, the whole death threat thing is off the table.  13:14, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Not to to put a fine point on it, but when you get this kind of message you are welcome to email it to the police like everyone else does. 13:54, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Please explain better: Did you receiver dead threats to your account on RW? If so, I think the moderators would agree to ban the user who made them. Did you receive dead threats via some other media directly to your persona? If so, you should report them to the police. Thinker(unlicensed) 14:58, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No, in either case they can be reported to the police. Users committing crimes are, no matter what moderation decision we make, still criminal.  The only reason not to do that is that mikeymike has fled to a country without an extradition treaty to the country his victim is in.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:02, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "No, in either case they can be reported to the police."
 * Of course, thanks for correcting something wrong I never said. Thinker(unlicensed) 19:35, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, just to point out I've been asking Mike for 5 years to meet me face to face. He chickens out everytime and just posts these stupid threats behind safety of his keyboard such he was going to kill me with a knife. Have you seen his laughable appearance? He weighs about 10 stone (for a 41 year old) and looks anorexic, wearing what looks like a very effeminate coat. He's introduced after 2 minutes in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5g4_v4JStOU I always have a good laugh when I rewatch this. Concerned (talk) 17:52, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Probably still weighs more than me.... A guy can wear an effeminate coat and look great in it. It's Mike's rancid personality that makes him ugly. Oh and I don't like the "having balls" and disparaging " he looks effeminate" remarks, makes me... Eeeuugh. 18:20, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Mikey's obviously not serious about the threats. He just likes to fantasize because he's a pathetic impotent loser. 18:32, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you're right. No normal person has a face that looks as weirdly twisted as his, and I'm willing to bet it's because his hateful nature makes him scowl constantly. 18:42, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Mikes' internet persona is completely different to real world. I talked to someone who has met him in person and they were shocked to learn of his Nazi/white supremacist views. I more consider him as mentally ill rather than a genuine white nationalist: Stormfront/Metapedia/Anthroscape/StumbleInn and pretty much every other far-right or racist forum has banned him. His reputation is rock bottom among people who supposedly share his beliefs.Concerned (talk) 18:47, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Why did the other racists ban Mikey? 18:54, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Probably still weighs more than me what exactly do you look like? I'm honestly curious. 2607:FB90:9239:B158:0:19:A2D0:9101 (talk) 19:09, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Mostly for writing perverted sexual things and trolling. He's pretty much a creepy incel in his 40s. Anthroscape banned him after he pestered a female poster to meet him and have sex; the female described him as a "sicko" and "creep" in response. Something similar happened on StumbleInn where he was banned for asking a female poster if she wanted to be gang raped.Concerned (talk) 19:24, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Re: Comment: There never were "multiple people suing me". Mike just repeats lies he reads on A-b-d's bullshit blog.Concerned (talk) 22:41, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Long BoN: IDK what's your image of me? 23:35, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

As a sysop here I'd like a bit of background information on exactly who this "Mikey" is: is it Mikemikev? Has he been responsible for the many newly created accounts vandalizing pages like Debate:"We can't save the white race"? I'd appreciate it if someone could fill me in (sorry if I should be asking about this somewhere else). Jinx (talk) 23:45, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, its Mikemikev. And all those socks are his. The racist ones are easily identifiable, but he's recently tried to evade getting blocked by pretending to be different people, including impersonations of real people (something he notorious for doing across the internet), as well as making up silly personas pretending to have different POVs. He's literally unemployed and sits doing this all day; I noticed he starts doing this 8 to 10 am each day and is still doing it by 6 to 8 pm. (I'm from UK the same as him and have noticed the repetitive pattern), anyway someone should probably alert Kiwi Farms about his latest insane behaviour: https://kiwifarms.net/threads/mikemikev-michael-coombs-twinkle-toes-velcro-pants.17243/ The funny thing is he claims to hate this place but is obsessed with it and posts here everyday.Concerned (talk) 00:10, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I rather we keep the hell away from KiwiFarms as far as possible. 00:42, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

What is the body?
https://www.lionsroar.com/what-is-your-body-july-2013/

From what the article mentions, what we take to be the body ( a solid and enduring form) is reallyjust a series of momentary conscious events that are happening. Personally I don't buy it but I want to know what other people think here. I mean consciousness has to come from somewhere right? Like the brain. This just seems to me like a variation of the whole "consciousness is weird" trope.Machina (talk) 19:34, 9 March 2019 (UTC)


 * This is a little excerpt from it:

Contemporary cognitive science agrees. All experiences arise when consciousness is activated by a sense organ meeting an internal or external object. (Here, the mind itself functions like a sixth sense organ in relation to emotion and thought.) We assume we are “experiencing” the object that gave rise to the event in our consciousness. But the truth is that the only thing we can verify is the experience itself, however we may be misconstruing it. The idea of the body is like this. It is an idea based on unwarranted assumptions about the coherence of our conscious experience.Machina (talk) 20:39, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * you cannot escape your own head. you can only see through your eyes, hear through you ears, touch through your own skin. this is the limit of what we can perceive. we can augment with specs and hearing aids, it can worsen or be lost through age or physical trauma. whatever form the information we receive via those senses is all we got. we process it in our brains, which can be effected similarly through physical means. if we can only ever perceive things the way we do, it is irrelevant if we perceive an abstraction, or a delusion because thats all we have to go on. its an abstraction that makes sense us and reinforced by constant interaction with our environment. its coherent because walking into traffic or over a cliff can cause you to perceive severe pain. science and maths can help conceive of things not perceptable via our senses, and physical effects can be apparent even when you cannot see the cause.
 * if these are our limits and can never get beyond them, what functional difference is it if whats 'real' is something we never experience or perceive and cannot comprehend? you cannot do anything based on something you cant experience, perceive or comprehend in any way beyond contemplating your naval an disappearing up you own arsehole.
 * what if it were all a dream? what if this is a simulation? you going gamble that it is based on nothing? you can do nothing with that information true or not. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:49, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Not sure how that addresses the point i made.
 * Also here is the other bit to the quote: The Buddhist teachings on the workings of mind, called Abhidharma, teach us that there isn’t a body per se, just a variety of momentary mental events. some of them we think of as “physical,” even though they’re not. When I feel an ache in my right leg, the Abhidharma analysis goes, this sensation is a mental event produced in consciousness when an object I call a leg activates inner sensors that awaken awareness in a particular way. Likewise, seeing, hearing, and all sense perceptions are mental events stimulated by apparently physical objects.Machina (talk) 22:13, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * you were talking about experience and perception. now you are talking how we interpret stimuli. its still experience and perception. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:34, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you are getting at, so is the guy right?Machina (talk) 22:56, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * i mean i guess. there is a physical process and its interpreted in your brain. a biologist can give a better description. we interpret it in a way that we can understand and is useful to us, but it doesnt make it false in anyway. the guy in link goes on to about oneness with earth and such like. im not a buddhist so means little to me. AMassiveGay (talk) 00:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think he means that. He's saying there is no "physical".Machina (talk) 01:41, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Which is dumb and wrong. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:24, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * hes not really saying that though. he says buddhist thought is that there is no physical and all is an illusion, but he just restates what ive already said - stimuli is processed in the brain and we react accordingly. he also goes on to describe a variety of actual physical processes and facts to highlight just how amazing our bodies are and we should appreciate that. hes very much asserting this is physical and is very much real. where he and i differ, is how, after whatever stimuli has been processed, is how we process that information, our awareness of it, our perception. he would have you think that our awareness is, from want of a better word, a real thing, separate from our physical bodies, while i would say its firing synapes and chemical reactions in an amazingly complex computer that is our brains. and even then, he still saying that everythings informed by the physical, leading in on how meditation can be used to reduce stress by 'bringing awareness to every part of your body' kinda bringing kind of equilibrium between your body and mind. there is no denial of the physical, no claims of your body not being real, but opposite. on the more spiritual claims, they seem purposely vague. ambiguous enough to read in either way - he gives no concrete and definite pronouncements of 'this is the way things are'. thats quite refreshing for this kind of thing.
 * please bear in mind though, and i cannot stress this enough, i am not a buddhist, i have no special knowledge of it nor indeed in any of things discussed. i will disregard all spiritual or religious stuff unless i see how could relate to a more materialist? approach. you'd need an actual buddhist for more nuanced look at that stuff. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:29, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Well actually he is saying there is no physical: https://www.lionsroar.com/everythings-made-of-mind/Machina (talk) 19:40, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * ok, ive not read that page, just the linked one earlier. different circumstance might give this more weight in one than in another, but not really important to me. let try a different tack. im not buddhist and the religious spiritual stuff i can ignore. you try it now. throw out the karma, the enlightenment and anything like that. now consider there is no physical, its all illusion. where does that get you? what choices do make in  life, major or trivial with that? you would make no decision or make any action based on that. because its based on nothing. there is nothing to suggest it is illusion in any way, and the only things that that can inform or guide you are your own experience and perception on given to your own senses. nothing else. everything you know or feel tells you there is a physical reality. you see, smell, taste it. it give pain and pleasure. it is all ever see and do and ever will see and do. against a vague idea of your perception is an abstraction. it makes no difference to what you can do real or no unless you to prepared to sit still long enough to starve to death. if it is an illusion, its pretty solid as they go. you cannot pierce it and test for it. try this - next time you need a shit, ask youself if its an illusion and if you treat it as such or live it as if it is real. you will have an answer depending if you shit yourself or wander to the toilet. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:51, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The Zen Buddhist would just tell you to go use the damn toilet, that's what's it's FOR. (And he'd hit you with a stick if you didn't.) Pere Ubu (talk) 19:53, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * They would also likely dodge the question.Machina (talk) 02:50, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * i dunno they seem pretty clear to me - all things physical are an illusion. reach enlightenment to pierce it. in the meantime, go for a shit. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * But that doesn't mean they are an illusion. You buy into that enlightenment stuff?Machina (talk) 18:06, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. Also, the scientific and religious approaches are incommensurable. Ariel31459 (talk) 18:45, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Get your NOMA outta my conflict hypothesis. They conflict frequently and science is right when they do.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * to be fair be, im pretty clueless on the science side of things too. and at maths. and philosophy. economics. politics. it takes me a couple of seconds to read a clock. im quite good the crossword. so theres that AMassiveGay (talk) 19:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not actually bothered by your personal openness and desire for nuance, just a single, specific word Ariel used, "incommensurable" is an overly generous way to describe the relationship between science and religion. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:19, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

A miserable little pile of secrets! But enough talk... have at you! (sorry, I just had to say that). Towards-the Unknown (talk) 01:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You steal men's souls and make them your slaves! I like that, without context, the conversation can apply to any number of fictional relationships. I don't think the authors were that brilliant, but somebody nailed that one enough for Warren Ellis to be commissioned to write a whole miniseries over it. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:58, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I've actually never played it. I've just seen that one bit of dialogue from it. Towards-the Unknown (talk) 16:18, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

In 1792, a kilossal mistake was made
Am I the only one that gets very bothered by the fact that the base unit of mass in the metric system is the Kilogram? It is the only one of the 7 SI base units which includes a prefix in the name of the unit. They changed it from being the gramme in 1792 because it was too small for common use or something, but they should have just kept the base unit being the gram and used the kilo prefix in common use (I mean that is the whole point of having a convenient prefix system built into your units). Instead they had the worst idea ever and changed the base unit itself! As is, a thousandth of a kilogram should be a millikilogram and a thousand kilograms should be the kilokilogram. I was really hoping they would fix this last year when they did the overhaul of the SI base units, but the fact that they just left it is a travesty. Now every god-damned unit converter has to be programmed with a special case for unit conversions and naming schemes for that unit specifically! They had a perfectly consistent naming scheme, just to fuck it up. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 15:48, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Eh, I don't mind it. Mostly because the US still uses Imperial, and the only time I use SI is for science or some math classes. RoninMacbeth (talk) 15:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * What really needed to be done was to stop basing the system around powers of ten and redo it around powers of twelve. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 16:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I can't tell if you're joking or not. Are you? RoninMacbeth (talk) 16:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know if is joking, but I heard more than one time people arguing that 12 is a better base than 10, essentially because 12 has more small divisors than 10. The point is that one could object that 60 is a better base than 12 for the same reason, and so on... In truth, there's no better base, it depends on what kind of computations one wants to do. Thinker(unlicensed) 17:06, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Unlicensed Thinker has a point here. The Babylonian numbering system were based on the numbers 12 and 60. Have you ever wondered why there are 360 degrees in a full circle, or that there are 60 seconds in a minute? I'm talking about angular measures here. By the way, what's the SI unit of angles? How often do you use it? Temperature? One should be flexible. Dogmatically sticking to SI units is unwise. Scientists certainly do not do this, despite popular misconception. Nerd (talk) 00:20, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "what's the SI unit of angles? How often do you use it?" It's radiant, which is good for math and very bad for measurements. Thinker(unlicensed) 16:02, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Very good, but there is no t at the end. It's just the radian, short for radial angle. Nerd (talk) 16:40, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe is referring to the fact that English numbers go up to twelve before switching to compound words (thir-teen, four-teen). Am I right, Smerdis?--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 13:07, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There's plenty of applications where the second and meter are completely inappropriate. I've no idea why the gram is the problem; maybe someone didn't like giving their weight as 100000 g. --Annanoon (talk) 16:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I know I measure travel distances in meters. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The kilo is the base in name only. One of the reasons why is because it is the weight of 10 cubic cm of water or 1 litre (more or less) and that's the original weight stored for calibrating scales. I'd rather an imperfect scale be in kilos than grams. Slight errors in the weight of grams become enormous if you multiply it by thousands. In any case...gram is the base in terms of the prefixes used. On a human scale we measure our height by the meter...our beer by litres and our weight by kilos. I don't think much calamity has arisen because the base is considered the kilo.  Shabi  DOO  21:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Not having a consistent naming scheme *is* the travesty. I also do work at a calibration lab so I can speak from experience when I say that many calibrations are done using esoteric units.  When measuring pressure we use millimeters of mercury [mm-Hg], because we are literally measuring the height of an actual tube of mercury. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 00:14, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * At the time...calibration wasn't remotely as precise as it is now. I believe the meter is now expressed in terms of distance light travels in a vaccine? In 1800 for example if your gram weight was 1% too high it would add that much in kilos which would make almost everyone weight off by a kilo or so (and kilo weights were not cheap). If you are weighing something like gold you are talking a huge under or over cost. It was a lot easier to get a kilo close to the original than a gram. Both in fabrication and measurement. I never had a problem working out that gram is the base for the pre-fixes and kilogrammes was the base for our reference. A travesty? Shabi  DOO  14:16, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure we define the meter in terms of the speed of light in vacuum, not a vaccine. LOL! In case you missed it, we recently decided to redefine the entire metric system in terms of fundamental natural constants, taking advantage of modern high-precision measuring techniques. Nerd (talk) 15:00, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh the joys of autocorrect. Shabi  DOO  16:29, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I tried to measure the speed of light in a vacuum. But it was dark in there. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 04:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I tried to measure the speed of light in a vaccine but I got diagnosed with severe autism. Shabi  DOO  14:43, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

And what about the metrification ditty - 'Two and a quarter pounds of jam/Weigh about a kilogram'? (The other two being 'A litre of water/Is a pint and three quarter' and 'A yard metre is three foot three/It is longer than a yard you see.') Anna Livia (talk) 23:49, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * So it's all very subjective. With temperature, Celsius is based on water's boiling and freezing points.  Fahrenheit is more complicated, I guess it's based off of a specific salt-water solution.  I live in the American Midwest, I am very used to the weather being read in Fahrenheit.  0 to me means okay, yeah, take it seriously.  32 means spring is here! The difference between the weather being 21 degrees and 29 degrees Celsius just reads entirely different from 70 to 85 Fahrenheit.  When rounding with Kilograms, I still like pounds better.  30 lbs (~13 kilos) is more than doubled when you get to 60 lbs (~27 kilos).  I know it is arbitrary (and bad math), but the minutia matters differently in everyday life than it does in the maths.  They are not great refence points for looking beyond the horizon, but the extra whole number degrees are very useful for people who have to go outside or pick up boxes.  I fully support math and physics going full metric, and I think they pretty much have.  I barely passed a physics class 15 years ago that measured everything in metric, it wasn't the metrics that threw me.  But with the weather, I like the idea that temperature is based on whether we can keep ice off the roads or not.  I know that's not what was intended, but post-hoc I like Fahrenheit for the weather.   I'd be harder pressed to defend weight.  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:38, 25 March 2019 (UTC)