RationalWiki:Saloon Bar/Archive317

Why is it that many people treat Autism as if it was the second Black Death?
Obviously that mentality is from Pro-Plague people. Either way, they treat Autism like a virus. It is incorrect and unethical. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:41, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Who do you know who treats autism in such a way? That's not my experience, and I am autistic. 2607:FB90:509A:2243:0:1A:F401:2A01 (talk) 12:35, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Not really, it's more the logical derivation for someone who, say, think polio as something that is "better" than autism / Asperger's from my viewpoint. Even if the vaccine/autism connection was true, which it isn't, a disease like polio is far more devastating than mild autism / Asperger syndromes, so getting the vaccine would still be worthwhile. Autism was diagnosed as a disorder only in the 1940s (just when vaccination was starting to become production scale), and Aspergers only in the 1980s, so IMHO one of the faults of the anti-vax crowd is not recognizing the relative history and making bad connections due to the relative recent nature of autism diagnosis (as well as, in particular, the much newer tendency to diagnose non-debilitative variants like Aspergers, a trend only a couple decades old). From my reading of history, autism / Aspergers and relatively related syndromes (eg OCD) have been around for *much* longer than their diagnosis suggests. It is possible to do quite well even with the symptoms. (It is impossible to definitively tell, of course, but one can speculate which classical composers would be diagnosed with an "autistic" or at least the related OCD disorder today. Anton Bruckner? Erik Satie? Bohuslav Martinu? Maybe. Speculative, of course, because mental diagnosis like autism / Aspergers / OCD did not exist 100 years ago, the behavior would only be described as "odd" or "eccentric" back then, and you can't reliably diagnose by anecdote. Still... seems possible to me. You can run this speculative exercise in other heady fields like scientists as well.) Soundwave106 (talk) 13:08, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Breeder class anxiety, basically. Most parents above a certain income level have figured out that downward mobility is a very real possibility for their children.  They are willing to move mountains to avoid that fate for them.  It's the same reason I am basically sympathetic with those parents who 'cheated' to get their children into prestigious schools. Where real life rewards are gated by silly games, you do what you gotta to win, and I have no problem with that. AAR I suspect the explosion of autism diagnoses is an example of the same kind of fear.  And the many autism self-diagnoses have one of their mainsprings as a desire to explain failure to Mom and Dad. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 14:17, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It actually makes me wonder how many historical figures were on the spectrum, but no one ever knew because there wasn't any knowledge of autism. RoninMacbeth (talk) 14:31, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I normally strongly dislike speculating about individual historical figures, but the one I'd make an exception for is Jeremy Bentham; he might as well have had it tattooed on his forehead. But I dislike the idea of normalizing autism in a lot of ways; if there ever was a cure I'd seek it in a heartbeat, I'm one of the relative success stories and I'd only wish my day to day existence on someone I truly despised. Most likely I'll live out like Eleanor Rigby, and it's extremely obvious that, whatever positive traits I have from The Big A (I wish I could take credit for that, certainly better than repeating ASD or PDD-NOS all the time) are more than outweighed by how hard it is to give/receive information in a normal way. If I hadn't avoided the nearly-ubiquitous monotone voice of The Big A I'd pretty much be totally fucked. Should society work with us, yes, but trying to present it as some "alternative way of thinking" is the mental version of "healthy at every size" bullshit. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい ) 23:03, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Also on the spectrum,.and I'd just like to point out that a lot of the negative aspects are amplified far beyond the impact that they might otherwise have specifically because it's the so-called "neurotypicals" who refuse to give and receive information as they ought to. In any event, autism is not the end of the world and if parents are panicking about it I have to wonder why absolutely every other form of intellectual disability and incurable birth defect known to man isn't treated with the same form of hysteria.--Logos (talk) 01:08, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Move along
Even without considering the obvious trolls... 2607:FB90:509A:2243:0:1A:F401:2A01 (talk) 12:48, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * What kind of bullshit do you mean, BoN? Tinribmancer (talk) 13:18, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Personally I love threads about how the Saloon bar is shit and don't consider them a waste of time or trolling. --Annanoon (talk) 13:32, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Does non-attachment lead to an happy life?
https://www.elephantjournal.com/2015/09/why-non-attachment-is-one-of-the-keys-to-a-happy-life-relationship/

Because to me it seems that they are trying to justify nonattachment being healthy where in relationships it makes it seem like you are always on edge because you know it will end. It also to me makes it sound like the relationship is cheap, like why invest in it if you just know that it's going to end some day. I mean yeah we do get hurt when these things end, but that's normal. It's part of life and living is about learning to move on from those things. I know I've lost in the past and it hurt, but I wouldn't trade that for happier times or being non attached. It seems to me that non-attachment and disinterest go hand in hand. I mean....if you are setting goals and you don't care about the outcome then why are you setting goals to begin with?Machina (talk) 21:46, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I decided to turn to a well respect sociology journal to approach your question. Namely the Journal of Happiness Studies.  The net results of my review of relevant articles is "Probably not happiness per se, no".
 * Levels of attachment in romantic relationships seemingly predicts relationship satisfaction, which itself is associated with life satisfaction and happiness metrics. Something of an unsurprising result, if you've ever been in a romantic relationship where you found yourself not caring about the other person.
 * Being more inclined to find attachment later in life mediates level of finding meaning. Also an unsurprising result.  Other papers found similar results investigating the same question in different areas
 * However: there are rather substantive trends of lower levels of anxiety, depression, and stress among those with higher levels of nonattachment, and these trends are further enhanced by levels of mindfulness.
 * All this starts to put together an image of lower attachment not leading specifically to increased happiness, but maybe a bit of a flatter emotional curve.  Lower highs and higher lows.  Someone consistently battling depression might see some value in that for living a happier life.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:06, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I guess but the idea here is that it is supposedly THE way to go. I can say that having tried it before it's not what I would call living. I went through life mostly being unaffected by anything at all and it wasn't pleasant but not bad either. It's similar to being dead honestly.Machina (talk) 23:29, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Burden of Proof / Null Hypothesis
So I'm having a mock debate with a friend on the topic of mermaids (neither of us believe, just for practice). We're having some issues with the burden of proof. I made the claim that mermaids do not exist. Is the burden of proof on me (as he claims) to prove that they do not exist since I made the initial claim? Is it a Null Hypothesis that is free from the burden of proof? When I Google both "Burden of Proof" and "Null Hypothesis" it doesn't clarify much. The article for Burden of Proof on this site doesn't clarify as much as I would like either. I'd appreciate some input. Alec (talk) 22:03, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You cannot prove mermaids don't exist. You can only show that it is unlikely that they exist. The concept of null hypothesis is irrelevant. One way to show there is no evidence for the existence of mermaids is to consult a species catalog. This suggests that no responsible scientist has ever verified the existence of mermaids. Unicorns might also exist. We just don't know of any.Ariel31459 (talk) 22:43, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * To be blunt, yes. You have made a positive claim (X does not exist) and must now either cite evidence or redact your claim. For example, if I claimed that God does not exist (and I do) I would point out how God has traditionally been where humans cannot go (mountains, skies, beyond the sky, beyond reality), which indicates to me at least that theists cannot help but move the goalposts to such a degree as to appear as if there is no god, and that they are just making up excuses. Or I could point out that an invisible, intangible, and indirect god is practically the exact same thing as no god. Likewise, you could point out that if we cannot find mermaids, and if we cannot find evidence that such creatures are even possible, then we must for all practical purposes take it that they do not exist, unless extremely extraordinary evidence proves otherwise. 22:53, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Not sure what'd be physically impossible about mermaids or unicorns. Give humanity enough time and we'll probably genetically engineer them. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:5D52:E700:16FC:2A2C (talk) 23:21, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Also it's kinda disappointing Hoplitomeryx isn't a staple "awesome extinct mammal" in pop culture. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:5D52:E700:16FC:2A2C (talk) 23:43, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Isn't the Null Hypothesis relevant in this case? With the stance that mermaids do not exist being the Null in this instance? "The person claiming something is possible or has happened needs to produce evidence to refute the null hypothesis." If he's advocating that mermaids DO exist he's just working against the Null Hypothesis which is the neutral starting stance that I'm advocating for. Alec (talk) 00:23, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You made the wrong claim - had you claimed "I have seen no (credible, verifiable, sufficient, etc) evidence that mermaids exist" you could defend it. By saying that do not exist then you make a statement of fact - so what's your evidence to support that fact?Aloysius the Gaul 01:05, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * So in my case my evidence would be a lack of evidence for the pro-mermaid side. Alec (talk) 01:22, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * As per GrammarCommie (above), see Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Bongolian (talk) 07:48, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Burden of proof shouldn't be used as a cudgel. This is a common novice skeptic mistake.  There are classes of statement where it's a bit unreasonable to expect someone to casually and easily refute a complex and vague claim with absolute evidence.  "There's a teapot floating in the asteroid belt in some non-specific location" being a kind canonical example.  Teapots have remarkably hard to diffentiate character compared to asteroids, and the area to consider is huge, and the resources available to investigating the claim are few and expensive, and better suited to other tasks.  And if there were any reason to believe it to be true, you'd probably have leads to make backing your claim much easier.  Orders of magnitude easier.
 * But trying to generalize to say "Burden of proof is always on the person making a claim" is a bit too easy. We can provide decent evidence that bigfoot doesn't exist, because any charasmatic megafauna with a specific habitat and a population large enough to sustain itself without going extinct leaves numerous identifiable physical artifacts that we would find: bones, scat, kills(if predatory), territory markers, fur, teeth.  At levels where we could basically guarantee finding them in a given acreage.  The absence of evidence in such a case truly is evidence of absence.
 * So... be aware of the burden proof, but don't let it be your single guidepost on truth. Pose hypotheses.  "If what you're saying is true, Y should also be true, and we can examine the facts of that, right?" is a powerful expression of the scientific method.  For mermaids, that could be things like "What role are you proposing they fill in an ecosystem?  Which ecosystem?  What evidence would that leave behind?"  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:19, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I would say it's about knowledge versus belief. I do not believe mermaids exist. I do not know that mermaids don't exist.
 * If I make the absolute claim that "I know x does not exist" then, yes, the burden of proof is on me to explain how I have come by this knowledge.
 * In addition, my belief is not an on/off thing. My level of belief is conditioned by the quality of the evidence.
 * I also agree that the null hypothesis would be "X does not exist" - but that's part of a reasoning methodology. It's not a statement of personal knowledge.Hubert (talk) 19:41, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Death threats over Unplanned
So apparently Canadian theaters have been getting death threats over showing the film Unplanned. Two theaters caved. According to some people, including Geeks + Gamers, Breitbart, various subreddits, those death threats came from "SJWs" or "far left thugs".--DoomTay (talk) 01:20, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * "Apparently" and "according to some people" are not credible sources. Need to see some evidence, then we'll talk. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 01:37, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Here's probably one of the few articles on the matter that isn't from some nutcase site. Though what gets to me is that do we really have any idea who made these death threats?--DoomTay (talk) 03:47, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It appears the threats were real, but of course we can't have any way of knowing where they came from. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 04:05, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * They received this information from credible, otherworldly sources. The SJWs have connections with the Dark Lord himself, and the Nazis are doing the work of God in purging the world of their Satanic menace. — Oxyaena   Harass  02:05, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * A not inaccurate description of the plot of the movie, that includes scenes of their straw liberals cackling with glee with literal bloody hands. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 02:13, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * lol. I was just confirming this with Satan Himself on Goat (you know, Gab meets Voat, but for RWers). CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 02:48, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Literally every single has-no-quality-except-being-right-wing movie pitches itself on "we're oppressed for our opinions". That's literally been the advertising campaign for every single one.  Listing 3 sources whose whole job is to sell right wing bullshit and expecting anyone to care is a big ask, tay.  Especially given the "side" you're asking us to fear for here, has literally committed multiple mass shootings in the last decade to push their position.
 * Another story earlier in the production cycle included this bit

All that aside, the anti-abortion community claims the movie has been censored, especially in Canada. At an Ottawa press conference in early May, producer Lisa Wheeler said, “We have been effectively blocked from distributing the film in Canada.” Cinema chains responded that this wasn’t the case, but either way it played into the movements’ hands, enabling them to complain of elitism, the basic right of freedom of expression, and the danger of censorship. Last week, however, it was announced that Unplanned will indeed be playing in at least 24 theatres across Canada.
 * They lied. Straight up lied about being censored.  And now you want us to believe articles that cite literal hearsay?  From far right propagandists?  Really?  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 02:13, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Are we still talking about this thing? It was boring. Like Austen Powers, but written by and for pro-life Fundies and not very amusing. The Bells of Innocence was better. Hell, there are multiple crappy fundy flicks that were and are better than Unplanned, and most if not all of them are crap. 03:46, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * CTV news has a more sober take. I wouldn't be surprised if a few nutty angry lefties did some death threat thingy, but we are in the age (as in every time) where nutty death threaty thingies are the norm for every single hot button subject. It sounds like a "preach to the choir" type film, if I watched it (hah!) I'd probably be reaching for TVTropes to cross-reference what standard emotion-sleeve-tugs they are utilizing. Soundwave106 (talk) 13:17, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Qanon is personally frustrating
I have a friend that I really respect. He is smart, he is funny, always laughing and having a good time with anybody and everybody. He is a good guy and not some kind of right-wing nutjob. But he interprets a lot of his news through other friends he has who he believes really hammer down on the facts. The 5th, I asked if anybody saw the Trump airports gaffe, and he said, "yeah, but the thing about that, do you know what Britain called their catapult sites during the revolutionary war?" I stared at him silently. "Airports, so, that's BS." But is it likely that Trump knows about Revolutionary War tactics or just that he talks faster than his brain can keep up with? I looked it up later, and again, and again, and I still can't find any reference to catapults even being used in the Revolutionary War. There is a method for launching planes from aircraft carriers called catapulting. That's close.

There are plenty of previous examples from this guy of really bad information, like when he said that abortion after birth is now legal but he agreed with me that it's probably not a real thing that happens. Another backwards impossible justification happened today, after I was excited to see that Jared Fogle made prison friends that attempted to "Sovereign Citizen" their way out of prison two years ago. I was personally like "Why didn't anybody tell me this, this is fantastic!" but also like "Well, here I go geekin on some shit." I shared it, there was something about Fogle somehow selling out Epstein a year ago for a lighter sentence (which Fogle does not have), but I'm not here to put this guy on blast. Just, I do have to listen to "facts" interpreted in a way that cannot be corroborated by any source, but seem to be healthy in the Qanon memorandums. But how do you disprove something that doesn't exist? Am I wrong about this catapult-airport connection? I know we've got some Brits here, but it would probably take a Revolutionary War historian to clear this one up. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 01:51, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Catapults were obsolete before the revolutionary war. They were not used. 01:55, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I was just thinking while reading this how bizarre it would be for soldiers to be using catapults during the revolutionary war. Alec (talk) 02:39, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It is truly amazing the incredibly stupid shit ideology will convince you to say. Since this is only a gaffe it won't be with us forever, unlike the almost entirely fictional historical definition of "well regulated" that has become central to the right wing vision of the 2nd amendment.  Namely that it merely indicates the presence of ranks.  Complete bullshit.  Or the whole "eye of the needle" invention.  One of them will make up a convenient total fabrication that explains away why they're wrong, and then that fabrication becomes the new party line.  I wish I had a term for that phenomenon.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 02:45, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a little like a slippery slope in reverse. Kinda like a snowball, except if it ever stops rolling for long enough to test the ice core, oh, whoops, that history must be inaccurate.  Maybe closer to Sisyphus, where the top of the hill is where everything is right, and the bottom of any side of the hill would be easier to forget than think about while pushing that boulder.  Crafting a clay mountain?  Like, if everything from the bottom to the top can be piled on or chucked off, just as long as it's still a mountain we make ourselves that nobody can summit?  I'd also call it a shit-pile, and I think as a phenomenon, anyone might be susceptible to it.   Also, this include shifting goalposts.  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:43, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hahaha, sorry, just thought about a dung beetle version of Sisyphus, couldn't keep that to myself. "This ball of shit is so good, just gotta get it to the top of this OH DAMMIT no problem.  This ball of shit is so good." Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:25, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

The Paradox of the "Open Secret" and Exploitation
I am not a conspiracy theorist. I trust Occam's Razor to usually pare down the best explanation for a phenomenon. However, I'm a little perplexed by the recent trend and focus concerning "Open Secrets." Not because I don't believe the accounts, but more that I can't reconcile the broad amounts of dismissal, denial, lying, and intentional silence these things would require for, shit, decades now from, shit, basically everybody in front of a camera, and a staggering number of people without even the threat of being in front of a camera. The Catholic Church, Bill Cosby, R. Kelly, Louis C.K., Jared Fogle, Michael Jackson, Jeffrey Epstein, Harvey Weinstein. I mean, does it really take a Roosh V to make people start openly stating that "Holy shit, this whole (power + coercion = no accountability) equation sometimes works and that is gross?" I just don't get why it took so long, and this is not a dig at the victims, this is a dig at the people in the periphery who said/did nothing, and the people who encouraged the victims and periphery to say/do nothing.

How can a secret be so open that everyone knows it, but so important as a secret that it's not worth outing? Way to go society, we really did it. We really created a socially constructed paradox. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:13, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd put Jared Fogle under the "ordinary kid-diddler who happened to have a slightly noteworthy role", but for the rest, I reference the factoid that Donald Trump was elected president, and 70% of the so called "Moral Majority" approve of him even now. Yay human tribes. Soundwave106 (talk) 13:26, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Putting Fogle under the "ordinary kid-diddler who happened to have a slightly noteworthy role" point doesn't describe his ability to find and abuse kids. I'm sorry, but I just don't dismiss it as such.  An ordinary kid-diddler?  I think you might have been careless here, and I'd like to give you a chance to remember your childhood before you follow up.  This isn't like stealing.  Sure we've all stolen, but Jared Fogle got caught up in having sex with children for a couple years.  How is he an exclusion to this list?  It's not a complete list, if you'd like to add to it, feel free, but why would you exclude Fogle from a list of known abusers just because he sought out sex with minors like an "ordinary kid-diddler?"  Like an ordinary kid-diddler, are you serious?  Yes, he did act like an ordinary kid-diddler, I am not arguing against that.  But people knew he had sex on kids.
 * I am very upset with you right now. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 01:42, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

RIP SealionThinker
So a few days ago, I tried to vote for UT (if CTers are allowed, why not a sealion tamer?). Turned out he got banned on the 4th. Why was he banned?

Also, what will happen with his sealions? Are they going to a zoo? Tinribmancer (talk) 08:53, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * A zoo was proposed but the mob decided that banning him was better, see this and this. 09:00, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I wonder if he still lurks here, sneering to himself. — Oxyaena   Harass  09:17, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * He could still make a sock, no? Tinribmancer (talk) 13:06, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Since he got "banned" he isn't allowed to come back with a sock, unless he convinces the mob to unban him first.  13:22, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * So there's no way for him to do a mikemikev, then? Tinribmancer (talk) 13:35, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Well Mikemikev is also banned he just loves to come back and complain that we aren't racist enough. It's not allowed he just doesn't care. 14:27, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

hes gone and you are still talking about him. stop it. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:21, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Dude was our biggest shitposter for ages, some clarification ought to perhaps have been posted at the time for people not following COOP procedure, but I guess this works too. 14:27, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * UT, we knew ye a bit too well. RoninMacbeth (talk) 15:28, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * There were like 2 or 3 times where I was like "maybe they'll stop being a dumbshit, this post reflects some degree of critical thought" then the next post came. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:48, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * One less mother fucker to bring up PRATT's, good riddance.RipCityLiberal (talk) 16:05, 12 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I think we should have kept him, if only for entertainment..108.208.14.123 (talk) 20:51, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Bible
If everybody followed the Bible, would the world not be a better place to live in? &mdash; Unsigned, by: 2600:1:F165:7DE3:6163:B73C:6456:3 / talk
 * No. Tinribmancer (talk) 16:01, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I think humanity tried that once, the results were less than ideal. 16:04, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Good luck finding enough ginger cows to make up for a fraction of the sins out there. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 16:12, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? &mdash; Unsigned, by: 2600:1:F165:7DE3:6163:B73C:6456:3 / talk
 * Typical: Christians never seem to know their own Bible. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 17:00, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Checked. See what you mean. Well, is not sacrificing ended since the New Testament? &mdash; Unsigned, by: 2600:1:F165:7DE3:6163:B73C:6456:3 / talk
 * 17:14, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know. Did Jesus say sacrifices are no longer allowed? RoninMacbeth (talk) 02:33, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm also firmly in the no category. One is reason for that opinion many people throughout history who purport to follow the bible are awful, terrible people, committing murder, genocide, rape, and a variety of other atrocious crimes for various reasons, suggesting that, at best, conceptually following the bible is not substantively protective against the kinds of thing that you'd want to minimize for the world to be a better place.
 * But also because some of the written moral precepts of the bible themselves are not at all good for making a better world. Punishing rape victims for being raped, executing blasphemers, exiling men who aren't circumsized, prohibiting crop rotation, being obedient slaves.  These are strictures that are not only lacking in benefit to society, but hurt people and make the world a worse place.
 * No, you'd be far better coming up with a vision for universal morality based on some kind of human empathy, than an old book. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:19, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I think the world will be in a better moral place (especially for women, people of color, and LGBTQ people) if the Bible was used as toilet paper or a door stopper. 17:29, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Cosign this, possibly include all other religious texts also.RipCityLiberal (talk) 18:05, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

No. If we only went by the ten commandments we would live in a theocratic nightmare. If we followed the other OT stuff as well then it would be hell on earth.Hubert (talk) 19:30, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Once upon a time, all Europe followed the bible, for hundreds of years. It was a period riddled with wars, plagues, poverty and absolute dictatorships. So the answer is no. Avida Dollarsher again 21:16, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a bit of an oversimplification of the Middle Ages. But yes, in general, the world (or at least, the West) was better off after the Enlightenment. RoninMacbeth (talk) 02:33, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Following a non-fiction document is tough in its own right. Let's not get so righteous about an anthology.  Pick a single book out of the Bible first, get back to me.   I don't get why the Bible is used as a singular piece of infallible philosophical/theological literature.  Clearly Christians don't either or there wouldn't be hundreds of different sects.  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:53, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Any given region of Europe was at war in the 10th century way less than the US has been in the 20th and 21st. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 06:45, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Lack of proper nutrition of Noah's Ark
Last night when I added a section to Noah's Ark relating to Zoonotic diseases, it made me think of the lack of nutrition. What food did Noah and his crew eat? I highly doubt their diet involved protein. They would be getting sick quick. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 15:59, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Obviously because there was only two of every animal (or maybe 7 of the unclean animals), they definitely didn't eat any of the animals. Definitely. I think it's clear that at this point God decided that he would change the internal organs of all the participants to be able to process microscopic species in the waters, similar to whales. Duh. RipCityLiberal (talk) 16:08, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If they started out with 2 of every animal, they could have been eating a lot of bugs. I'm a little more worried about scurvy since they didn't bring fruit. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 16:39, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * "The things which are impossible with men are possible with God" LUKE &mdash; Unsigned, by: 2600:1:F165:7DE3:6163:B73C:6456:3 / talk
 * "Goddidit is a lazy excuse devoid of any original thinking or reason, one which can be dismissed offhand without any preamble."- Me. 16:51, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This is especially true if the source material does not bear out the claims. If I claimed that space aliens and cyborg dinosaurs helped Harry Potter defeat Voldemort, that would be untrue, and it would be blatantly untrue if it could not be verified by the story in question. 16:56, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Why didn't Got just Thanos snap sinful people. Why even get rid of them, why not just "fix" them? Why does he need to go through all this process and needlessly kill everyone? 17:22, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * God installed indoor greenhouses. — Oxyaena   Harass  16:58, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * And miracled Somer legumes in there. Anyway, eating some of even the clean animals wouldn't have been an option, since everyone and everything (even the animals with carnivores teeth) were supposedly vegetarians until the flood ended. Coigreach (talk) 18:27, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Why didn't Noah pass on down knowledge of all these advanced engineering techniques, leaving us to rediscover them? Stingy old bastard. — Oxyaena   Harass  20:31, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Well what would you expect from a guy who would curse his own son and all his descendants, just because Noah got shitfaced, disgraced himself and Ham happened to witness it. I'm getting a distinct feeling that Noah was bit of a cunt. Coigreach (talk) 08:18, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

I believe their diet consisted exclusively of unicorns. Though if we really want to be generous, I guess they could have eaten fish. Assuming, of course, that both the freshwater and saltwater fish weren't poisoned by the extreme salinity change.Hubert (talk) 19:25, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

noah also lived to be 950 years old. i'm not sure of the point in picking holes in a fairy story. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:18, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Presumably with enough holes the boat will sink. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:45, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

They ate the dinosaurs, of course! Avida Dollarsher again 21:11, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Chronology is hard
Why do people say Genesis copied the epic of Gilgamesh rather than the other way around? Or that Gilgamesh was simply a corrupted version for the events?
 * Why do people say The Chronicles of Narnia copied the Bible, rather than the other way around? CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 17:05, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Why are we JAQing off? 17:07, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know, why don't you ask them? — Oxyaena   Harass  17:10, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That would be the purpose of my inquiry. 17:12, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't waste your time, the BoN is our old pal Morris. — Oxyaena   Harass  17:13, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Skeptics do not give Apologists a chance, kinda unfair that explanations are not give a chance. What if you were not allowed to defend yourself? Who is your "old pal Morris"? Some friend of yours? &mdash; Unsigned, by: 2600:1:F165:7DE3:6163:B73C:6456:3 / talk
 * Because apologists are either stupid, dishonest, or illiterate. 17:27, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah apologists, twist around arguments against them. I don't trust die hard apologists who won't consider the other point of view. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 22:35, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

When the Atheists and anti-theists side with the Theists...
Because the Christians have a point. 23:11, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It sounds like the school admins are trying to "work by rule", without really understanding the rules... Pyro (talk) 23:33, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I hope the IVCF wins. 23:42, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Why we should abandon Democracy to save the planet.
Many may not like what I am about to say, but oI believe it is a hard pill to swallow.

In dire times, we must take extreme measures. Climate Change is a threat to our civilization. But there are groups and forces determined to stop any action against this trend. Many are unfortunately in the seats of our corrupt civilian government.

Liberal Democracy has failed to lead any action to stop this trend as it has enabled groups such as the Koch Brothers to halt any type of action.

Thus I advocate more radical measures. The current establishment is broken and thus a new one is in order.

This order is neither capitalist or socialist, I reject the dichotomy of capitalism or socialism and instead advocate a new system.

In order to effectively combat climate change we need a total commitment from society and the state. Both must cooperate and be organically intwined as it were a body. The Earth is like a body and thus civilization should be too. We must ensure the body’s health.

Spacehillbilly (talk) 03:17, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No. Yours is not the first a third way, nor the last. Neither is it the first to suggest enslaving us all in order to free us. If humanity and other life on the planet perishes because I wish live up to my ideals, so be it. 03:29, 13 July 2019 (UTC)


 * You sound like a republican or libertarian. Koch Brothers think tanks like the CATO institute and Fox News want you to think in terms of “freedom”. When the Civil War began, Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus. A necessary sacrifice for a great cause. Spacehillbilly (talk) 03:43, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Deflection, ad hominem, poisoning the well, yawn. What Lincoln did was wrong, plain and simple. Further, do not mistake me for some whimpering centrist merely because I reject your path. You are not the first to offer gilded shackles, nor the last. I merely recognize them as such, and the impracticality of enslaving an entire planet in order to save it. 03:51, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Isn't proposing a cooperation between society and state a socialist ideal? 03:59, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The Socialism I was referring to is of the strand of leftists thought that argues that the stand must wither away and die. This is a fallacy, the state is necessary for the benefit of the people. The lack of the state power in the US is why we such corporate power and influence. Unfortunately most of the leftists I talk to don’t see eye to eye with my ideas.Spacehillbilly (talk) 04:05, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Breaking: Soros and Koch join the anti-globalist anti-neocon Trump reform movement. nobsI'm all yea'res 05:43, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Eh, nobs, you do realise that the article you link to simply states that the Kochs and Soros agree on appealing to Washington to end the seemingly interminable wars, right? That’s actually something you’d find quite a lot of “globalists” (if by that, you mean something like what’s known as liberal internationalists in the terminology of international relations scholarship) and even neocons agreeing with (though they’d likely disagree over what constitutes necessary grounds for armed intervention).
 * If anything, this piece of news mainly illustrates the power of political inertia (US involvement continuing due to a lack of consensus on what new/other direction to take). It certain says nothing about the Kochs and Soros teaming up with Trump or supporting his erratic and confusing foreign policy (such as it is...) of personal photo op diplomatic events with Kim Jung Un, sabre rattling against Iran, pissing on European allies, praise of Putin and love of trade wars. ScepticWombat (talk) 08:58, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * So... when you say "Socialism" what you really mean is "Anarchism"... Is that what you're saying? Because that's a big mixup to make. 12:20, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * While what Spacehillbilly suggests is bound to fail bigly, saying outright that "I'll stand by my ideals even if it means the death of humanity" makes a good case for others to reject those ideals. That's kinda the downside of rejecting the Platonist realism of ideals as found in many religions. The only ideals that still matter are ones that can be realized in the material world. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:75E3:7FF5:9FAB:F5ED (talk) 16:43, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You assume my ideals are unrealistic, first mistake. My ideals tend to revolve around acknowledging the more negative aspects of existence and trying to minimize them, while also acknowledging that if such an approach fails the consequences could be quiet severe. Hence my rejection of ideas based on how someone thing ought to be, rather than how things actually are. If you try to force someone to do something, no matter how benign your intent, they will rebel. People by and large like to think of themselves as in control, even if that control is merely an illusion. So, with all of that in mind I reject the original proposal as unrealistic and hysterical and if its proposed consequences occur, I accept them as potentially inevitable. 16:54, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't know what your ideals are. Was just commenting on "If humanity and other life on the planet perishes because I wish [to] live up to my ideals, so be it." 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:75E3:7FF5:9FAB:F5ED (talk) 17:12, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't it be better, rather than quoting me and declaring me unreasonable, to just ask me why I made such a statement? 17:17, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Where did I call you unreasonable? I'm just saying your statement is unpersuasive within a particular context. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:75E3:7FF5:9FAB:F5ED (talk) 17:21, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I see, my apologies then. 17:25, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The strange thing about all of this is that it's not cosmologically important, nor is it ecologically important. It's the little niche we want to carve that's important.  I would agree that the survival of humanity is paramount, because there are too many works that humanity has already performed that I find precious and would want to preserve for later generations of humans.  But democracy is also one of those works.  As Jim Bouton said, if the bases were loaded and it came down to needing a single strikeout to win: "I would throw a knuckleball. I would throw a knuckleball because my feeling is I would rather live and die with my best pitch than take a chance with something that wasn't my best."  Democracy may be easy to game when it's done poorly, but it's impossible to game when it's done right.  Perfecting democracy is the way to save the planet, in my opinion. Switching to some other system, rather than working on democracy, is silly.  As far as America is concerned, there are plenty of ways to improve our democracy.  The "first-past-the-post" method, for example, might not be our most representative method, versus the "Ranked Choice" method.
 * I am also very frustrated with the way we are prioritizing the future. But I am also very distrustful of anyone who makes their way to the top of politics, and the amount of effort it takes to play the game if you aren't towing the lines is intentionally financially and mentally exhausting.  I mean, confidently name all the congresspersons you can off the top of your head.  There are 535 of them, so any number less than 5 is smaller than 1%.  I don't think cutting this number down is the exact solution.  But I agree, we're doing something wrong.  I'd say it's closer to not caring who gets into government and what they do from there, which isn't solved by rolling back democracy or appointing one person or group into power and washing one's hands of everything that happens after that.  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 09:29, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Before this is encouraging, I assure you, I meant to say it's not. It's meant to be the bleakest of points.  We can't just vote people into office if we want things done.  The civil rights movement was correct, facts over feelings, but it hasn't been implemented.   What makes anybody so sure that voting a dickhead into office makes a difference?  Voting is important, and those dickheads are our elected voice, but you can't just vote and quit, no matter who gets elected. Democracy requires every person to weigh in on the power conversation, best they can.  Electing a squad of champions is very cool.  As much as I love the squad and what they represent, they are doomed if democracy doesn't support them, because the highest congressional figures in the land want to kick the ladder out from under them and burn the traces and remind them that democracy done the congressional way means you don't ask for things the same year you've been elected.  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:16, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

House of the Rising Sun
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZYBHFv9Z14 might like this, I do. — Oxyaena   Harass  06:53, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course I like The Animals. I had a friend who made me listen to Eric Burdon every day for like a year.  I was about to post this, under the title "You and I, Then I Alone."  Serendipity that we can condense it.  Also, all the tones match Burdon's, if you wanted to know why I'm geekin.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVdVJlAZPNs

Thao & The Get Down Stay Down "Kindness Be Conceived" Live at KDHX 8/19/1

I tear up like it's a Pixar movie at 1:10 every time. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 07:02, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wF7sAjVcFJM if you want, this also follows a Burdon pace, Wye Oak for prayer, just linkin don't want to crowd the space Gol Sarnitt (talk)


 * On the off chance neither of you knew the original traditional song on which The Animals' hit was based... CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 01:29, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MkfTYPmLlA
 * I spent a little time on Leadbelly, but songs didn't stick with me like they do now. I knew that Leadbelly wrote it, somewhere back in that old filing cabinet part of my brain, but I was cross referencing so many songs in my head to the Animals and Burdon that somehow it didn't cross my mind.  And I have to say, after running through some of them, I appreciate the Leadbelly tracks a lot more than I did back when I was first exploring them.  Which, of course, I did because of Nirvana's MTV Unplugged session, keen crossover on that one. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 00:31, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I love nirvanas cover of where did you sleep last night AMassiveGay (talk) 00:38, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a great version. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 05:16, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Of gods and terms
Is there a term for someone who believes the mythology of a religion to be true, but rejects its teachings on moral grounds? For example, if someone believed in Heaven, Hell, God, and Satan, etc but rejected traditional doctrine and mythologies as immoral. Or to put it another way, someone who believes scripture is literally true but rejects it anyway. 14:21, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Misotheist. — Oxyaena   Harass  14:29, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Or heretic. Kencolt (talk) 15:30, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Right-wing sceptics that have changed?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbCG7a8LjCI

At 9:50, is he right? I mean, didn't we end up having an edit war with her fanboys last summer?

And yes, it's a 2 year (almost) old video, that's why I'm asking this. Tinribmancer (talk) 17:46, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand the question. Are you asking if several of the YouTubers we have articles on are opportunistic dipshits? 17:57, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That, and what Jake said about Shoe0nHead. She seemed pretty pissed about her page last summer, so I'm not quite sure whether what he says about her is true (both of them are, I think, good friends with her, so). Tinribmancer (talk) 18:11, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Should we care? — Oxyaena   Harass  18:24, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I would suspect, given that the original version of the article contained inaccuracies, that it was a combination of those inaccuracies and her having to face some of the ugly shit she's supported. 18:25, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, so this is like how I feel about Joe Rogan. I watched these guys for a while, and really liked it.  When they are slammin Chick Tracts, or bad Christian movies, they are great.  When they are dissecting Bible verses or Jordan Peterson's book, they are great, I'm on board.  When Joe Rogan is talking about MMA or smoking pot, he's the fucking authority.  Otherwise, I consider him an idiot.  I, unfortunately, do not like when Hugo and Jake just sit and talk about things.  A little hypocritical, because I will absolutely do that, but I mean, why are you dedicating time towards listening to/watching these guys talk about shit they don't research or craft?  There are people who love these two so much that they literally spend money on them to encourage them create content, and this is part of it.  I mean, I get it, but I don't get it.  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 10:44, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Chick Tracks and them taking the piss of bad Christian movies/shows. Just for entertainment in my case. Haven't really checked out their other stuff. Not ok with the fact that only Patreon members can join their Discord/get early shoutouts to some video's/video's only for patreons (apparently they have that). Then again, name 1 youtuber with a decent amount of subscribers who isn't in it for the money?


 * I also hate the jumpscares they have in some video's around halloween (I hate jumpscares in general to begin with)... Tinribmancer (talk) 22:33, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Chemtrails
A chemtrails believer presented me with this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wynpGOWb80&list=PL193118EE36034ED8

Any thoughts? How does one know for sure where this barium came from? ཨོཾ་མ་ཎི་པདྨེ་ཧཱུྃ (talk) 22:05, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It's very simple. When dealing with Chemtrail truthers, simply remember one thing. They don't understand how physics and engineering works. 22:11, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * "Could a strange substance found by a southwest Arkansas man be part of a government test?"
 * "They begin as 'normal' contrails, but do not fade away like a 'normal' contrail."
 * Reporters have no idea how contrails work, which follows the basic rules of cloud formation. It's completely normal for some contrails to remain in the sky for a very long time, due to certain levels of humidity and temperature in the sky (which can indicate an approaching frontal system).
 * And then guy apparently finds particles in the air and sees them drop to the ground in a haze, which he assumes has to do with the contrails (one event preceding another doesn't mean causation). Guy collects water in bowls, scientists discover high levels of barium but also other chemicals all which are already known pollutants in water (except silver?). The department the reporters asked said that the water is highly contaminated but aren't sure about the source (that isn't evidence for chemtrails; they probably just couldn't determine barium from typical natural erosion or waste runoff from a nearby factory). And then they point to stories where people are contaminated with biological agents between 1949 and 1969 and the Rockfeller Report showed secret biological tests. Again, these are unrelated events especially given the sheer implausibility and impracticality of dispersing shit thousand of miles overhead for some unspecified reason. Also, "chemtrails" are mentioned in a document HR 2977 but was written by UFO enthusiasts from a site called "exopolitics" who gave chemtrails only a passing mention. So, this is mostly bunk. Like usual. 22:38, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you think they could ever use chemtrails to sterilize all the rich people? Worth considering imo. — Oxyaena   Harass  05:01, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Might hurt nonrich people in the process. 16:31, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This is from 2007 - I'm afraid you've been PRATT-ed.... eg see http://contrailscience.com/barium-chemtrails/ Aloysius the Gaul 22:37, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

There was something in the newspapers the other day about the contribution of the water emitted by planes to global warming/absorbing sunshine. Anna Livia (talk) 11:02, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Something that would be a funny addition to RW
Have an automated voice say, "Welcome to RationalWiki". Have the voice in the style of an annoyed Wal-Mart greeter when people log on. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:53, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Funny like "haha" or funny like "Active userbase of zero"? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 02:13, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Either or. Does not matter. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 02:34, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Fuck that. — Oxyaena   Harass  03:34, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I honestly think that has to be your worst ever idea, Rationalzombie. It's bad enough news sites use autoplaying videos to annoy the user, now you want to use something similar? 6 days in the sin bin for you. Cardinal Chang (talk) 16:26, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Sin bin? I got something similar.
 * [[File:Mario of disappointment.jpg]]
 * 16:31, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Awh, just look at the sad look on the fictional character's face. Doesn't it just move your fictional self to fictional tears. Someone get Luigi, In bocca al lupo Cardinal Chang (talk) 14:56, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Should Spud's next translation be into French or Spanish?
I plan to translate the Halloween page into both French and Spanish by the start of October. The question is, which translation should I start first? My second RW Spanish translation (after Papá Noel) or my first RW French translation? Please help me decide. Thank you. Spud (talk) 11:07, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I just flipped a coin, head I suggest French, Tails I suggest Spanish. It landed heads up. 12:49, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Suggestion - do Andorra both ways. Anna Livia (talk) 12:59, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Pig latin. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:49, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't they speak Català in Andorra? CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 15:06, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Go ask Boris. Anna Livia (talk) 16:26, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Ha ha, thanks, hadn't heard of him before. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 18:18, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * He should consider translating the page into Irish Gaelic108.208.14.123 (talk) 20:50, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Which page? Anna Livia (talk) 22:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Pay attention, Anna. The BoN means the Halloween page, of course. If I could speak Irish, that would be a good suggestion. I'd like to know why hasn't moved any of his Irish translations to mainspace yet. They look finished to me.
 * So to make it clear, the next translation I'm going to start is of the Halloween page. Not the page on Andorra or anything else. Anyway, we haven't got a page on Andorra anymore. It was deleted on 1 October 2017. By me. But, by the way, I can speak Catalan too.
 * Anyway, so far it's one vote for French. Unless there's some change over the next few days, it looks like I'll start the draft of my first RW French translation on Saturday. Spud (talk) 05:50, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned Andorra and Boris S 'just clarifying.' Anna Livia (talk) 16:18, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you a hyperpolyglot, Spud? That's pretty rare. I'm only good at a few languages and so-so at a few others. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 04:36, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * With the help of Google Translate Duolingo, anyone can be a hyperomnipanmonoduotripolyglot: GUARANTEED!!! — Oxyaena Harass  04:37, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I guess I'm just a regular polyglot. I can speak five languages, English, French, Spanish, Esperanto and Catalan. And because of having studied those four additional languages, I can read a few other Romance languages that I never studied (like Ladino, Papiamento and Asturian) without much difficulty. I can also read a few other conlangs (like Ido, Interlingua and Lingua Franca Nova) without much difficulty. Then there are a few other Romance languages (like Walloon and Haitian Creole) that I can just about get the gist of in written form if I really try. And I'd never know I could read those languages if it weren't for the internet (specifically Wikipedia in its multilanguage forms). So, yeah, the internet can be a great tool in language learning. And Google Translate is a lot better than it used to be. Spud (talk) 09:19, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Petra
Any guesses as to when 7k will be reached (and is deleting 'dud' pages between now and then cheating?). Anna Livia (talk) 16:26, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Deleting pages or moving them out of mainspace slows it down of course. 19:36, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * More to pass and repass 7k several times/maximise the percentage of 'proper articles.' Anna Livia (talk) 22:26, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

45 is a racist
45 went from a dog whistle, to a megaphone, to an Amber Alert to tell us how much he hates POC's and immigrants. But still, most people say nothing.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 18:21, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm dubious that most people say nothing. The fact that he's racist is a primary motivator for many of his voters.  This wasn't undiscussed prior to him getting in office.  It was flatly denied because the right are intellectual cowards to a man, but it's not some unknown newfound revelation. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:28, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I dont get what is meant by Amber Alert. Can you elaborate?  Did Trump send a racist Amber Alert to people's phones that I missed or something?  MirrorIrorriM (talk) 18:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It's an extension of the metaphor(that doesn't quite work tbh), from "only understood as racist to racists(and people familiar with racist positions)" to "obviously racist" to "undeniably racist" as levels of filter dropped. As a comparison, only dogs can hear dog whistles, anyone can hear a megaphone, everyone hears an amber alert(because it's pushed to your phone).  I'm dubious because "they're sending us their rapists and drug dealers" was a pretty obviously false and very racist comment in 2015.  The birther thing in 2012 was pretty obvious too.  He's never been good at hiding it.
 * There's not much blood to get gotten from the "convincing right wingers of an undeniable truth" stone. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:09, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The biggest accomplishment Trump did with that undeniably racist tweet is unite the left, just at the moment the more moderate factions in the House were squabbling with progressives in the House. So there is that. Not that this matters to the Breitbart racists, but considering Donald Trump's heritage (Donald Trump's paternal grandfather and mother were German immigrants, and Donald Trump's mother was a Scottish immigrant) it's noteworthy that two of the Congresswomen addressed in the Tweet attack actually have more solid US family roots then Donald Trump. (As far as I can tell, Ayanna Pressley's parents and AOC's father are native born, and AOC's mother was born in the US territory Puerto Rico.) Soundwave106 (talk) 21:50, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * All that stuff was undeniably racist to most people, however he always had a habit of giving himself wiggle room; i.e. He never said Obama wasn't a citizen (he insinuated it), he also use the qualifier "Some I'm sure are good people", and denied saying "shithole" instead "shithouse" (which isn't really better). The fundamental difference I see now is that the wiggle room for any logic is gone, because he says that these women hate America and should leave, not to mention he doesn't care if White Supremacists agree with him because "a lot of people agree". For POC, and anyone with a shred of critical analysis knew he's been a racist, now he doesn't have any off ramp to hide behind. -RipCityLiberal (talk) 21:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

yeh its racist but it is just another tweet. I cant get worked up over something that just further confirms what I already believed and everyday has yet another tweet thats bullshit for one thing or another, everyday another garbled statement or easily refuted lie. it drowns everything else out with arguments over 'what he ACTUALLY meant' and then its contradicted in another tweet or 'he never said that, fake news'. outrage and condemnation of his tweets wont change peoples minds about him - if you didn't think he was racist before you probably wont now. the extra focus just helps normalise the views. the arguments will be forgotten when the next tweet comes, but the sentiment of the tweet will linger with the waters further muddied, views further entrenched. all the outrage and energy should be directed at policy. whats he actually doing, not his verbal diarrheaAMassiveGay (talk) 08:12, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * don't take the bait AMassiveGay (talk) 08:17, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * One affects the other. For instance, refugee crisis are never easy to handle, but Donald Trump's handling of the current Central America / Venezuela refugee crisis makes other political responses to refugee crisis (say, Jimmy Carter's kind-of-shaky handling of the Cuban refugee crisis... or Angela Merkel's response to refugee issues in Germany, which I think were right-headed but caused much political tension) look like shining beacons of awesomeness in comparison. Racism is a key ingredient IMHO for the poor handling -- the deplorable conditions you hear about in the refugee camps, the cruel policies (eg the family separations), and the lack of effort being put forth by the administration to correct this. It's much easier to dismiss this sort of thing if you think these people are "others". (In fact, much of the said administration effort is concentrated on anti-immigration saber rattling... which will probably make this crisis worse.) I do agree that the focus should not be on just one tweet, of course, this is a moral stain on the entire GOP (home of the "moral majority", hah!) that will probably haunt them for decades to come. Soundwave106 (talk) 15:42, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I kinda mean the endless arguments over the semantics of a two line statement. at no point will anyone say 'oh I see, that's why it racist'. they already know their arguments are unconvincing. because they are racist or its their team, they don't care. if its built up to be too big a deal over more concrete policy issues, they can just cave and play it off as compromise that effects nothing. then its 'see republicans are reasonable people' and 'why dems cant be reasonable too?' on any important issues.
 * I dunno. twitters nothing but bullshit and distraction and im on a massive comedown. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:35, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Trump is recycling the old "America: Love It Or Leave It" trope that Nixon embraced and was popular among the reactionary right in the 60s. Trump's "law and order" stance is also copied from Nixon. For some reason tough posturing against nonconformists and non whites resonates with the conservative crowd. Millennium Scallion (talk) 19:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The Nixon comparison is obviously clear in more ways than one. But the outright white nationalism combined with the executive overreach is particularly dangerous, more similar to Andrew Jackson.--RipCityLiberal (talk) 21:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

RW youtube channel
Does RW have it's own YT channel? If not, any plans on making one? Tinribmancer (talk) 19:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The flaw in this question is that youtube channels, unlike text media, are very hard to make collaborative. You might say "well a twitter account is also..." and I'll cut you off and say that posting our articles and retweeting relevant posts is not the same as creating new videos.
 * Also, I'd be scared of devolving into the toxic mess of idiots talking to cameras that defines most of "skeptic" youtube. I see you there, person reading this, toxic idiot, yes, I'm afraid of videos by you having RW branding.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:34, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * RW doesn't need her own Youtube channel. Seems like a waste of time. — Oxyaena Harass  19:38, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, the only real problem with sharing a YT channel would be production rights, i.e., who owns the channel on paper. In practice video chats make sharing a video discussion easier, though content and quality would likely vary. 19:54, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Soft disagree. Producing videos that are useless might be easy, but good videos take sustained, organized, planned effort with a singular purpose that aren't a good fit with wiki culture.  Contributor-based creation might be possible, but someone would have actually step up and create.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:01, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Styx talked about us.
I would like your rational take on his arguments against you in his recent live stream. https://youtu.be/kyfZWZVuBB4 To get the full context start at 2:36, but if you want to skip the fluff and get to where he mentions rationalwiki by name start at 3:52.
 * What do you consider of this? I find it incredibly dishonest that your website used a tweet, deliberately made with a fellow video in mind. Also the fact that you call him a white nationalist for debating, against might I add, a white nationalist is absurd. this is pure guilt by association, a logical fallacy I would think the "rational" wiki would be above.
 * Ironically despite being opposed to the human shithead that is Richard Spencer, he is a white nationalist. Styx was being sarcastic when he said he would side with the far right. It was a reaction to the Far left jumping down his throat, but then some members of this wiki turn around and use it as evidence that he was part of the far right all along. I think that is what we call Confirmation Bias. It's not platforming to debate someone, period. Also some advice, don't take people out of context.108.208.14.123 (talk) 20:42, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * B-but I thought this was supposed to be RationalWiki? Also, I haven't had one yet. Tinribmancer (talk) 21:01, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * So... He's not a Nazi shithead, he was only pretending to be a Nazi shithead (without any clarification until after he was called out on it) I think this blog post Illustrates the problem quite clearly. 21:08, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not watching a white nationalist video. I'll read text on their positions, but youtube videos are a shitty-ass way to deliver arguments.  The particulars of "idiot talks directly to camera" are especially bad for supporting misinformation.  There's no chain of custody for citations(the lefttube types work pretty hard on that problem but it's still shitty compared to text).
 * Debating against someone on some technicalities doesn't mean you disagree with them broadly. I could have a profoundly deep debate on important subjects that show intractable differences with someone who loosely fits the same political bucket as me.  I do a lot, in fact.
 * Consistently making videos promoting far-right garbage and then saying "I'm not far right, I just hate the left sooooo much" is a go to 'undercover' neonazi lie these days. We already know the sham.
 * You don't do videos about how the holocaust is "overstated" unless you're full-on nazi piece of garbage, and you should abandon your stupid argument today, BoN, and start hating this fucker. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * How much you want bet that the BoN comes back with some excuse and completely ignores your advice? 21:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 2nd most likely case after fucking off from a drive by troll. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:28, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Dat BoN edit history. 21:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * He seems to be a PewdiePie fanboy. Tinribmancer (talk) 21:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * A little unfair. They're a loser wasting their life worrying over the treatment of youtube stars.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:45, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It must be sad being that insecure about one's idols... 21:49, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * TDM2 is so pathetic it's sad at this point lol. — Oxyaena Harass  05:54, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait, that BoN is TheDarkMaster2? When did he get banned? Tinribmancer (talk) 09:07, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * He was banned by my hand months ago, keep up, will ya? — Oxyaena Harass  09:20, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

The IS comment
http://www.dailybuddhism.com/archives/903

"It amazes me how often I’ve seen the word “is” throughtout this site. Nothing “is”. Things resemble, apeear, or have some qualities of other things, but no thing “IS” another thing. Most grown adults know what “is” means, so most grown adults lie incessantly everyday. “The sky IS blue. The air IS cold. That man IS ugly.” Lies.

Not mistakes, not semantic differences, but mere lies."

I know I posted this before but I don't get why this is wrong. I think the bit about lies is a tad much, but is it wrong to say that something is cold even if some people have different measures of cold. Like when I say it is cold outside it usually refers to a temperature range, which in Florida is usually below 60ish.Machina (talk) 04:07, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Deepity CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 04:28, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * the are different levels of precision depending on whats being said and where. if I say its a bit chilly today down the pub, im not commenting on the precise temperature in calvins or saying its an indisputable fact true to all people everywhere, I am saying I might need to put on a jumper. If I say it is cold today in a paper on meteorogical trends, with studies and graphs and time lines and scientific research, it will have a more definite meaning in reference to something specific. we know the difference between the two. we know when take one statement more seriously than others. context tells us if we are too vague and need to clarify or be more specific.
 * its insane to expect a ridiculously high level of precision in all things. you'd need a war and peace length book of clauses and subclauses just to say hello.
 * its also insane to worry over comments that appears to take such an incredibly vague statement that its meaningless with no context, linked with such a strongly stated definite conclusion that i'd imagine the poster is insufferable in real life. AMassiveGay (talk) 07:19, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I hearby endorse 's one word response to Machina posts. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:37, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That's being close minded then, just dismissing something because it "Sounds" dumb.&mdash; Unsigned, by: Machina / talk
 * I have a homeopathic kraken to sell you for $1000. I freely admit it doesn't exist, but neither does your money, apparently, so it would be closed-minded of you not to pay me for the kraken, just because this highly intriguing business opportunity sounds dumb to you. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 06:23, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Buddy, it's not that it sounds dumb. It's that it sounds "deep" while being undeniably dumb.  I have 3 pieces of advice
 * read my all time favorite scientific paper
 * read my all time favorite scientific paper
 * read my all time favorite scientific paper
 * Then you'll understand where I'm coming from. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:55, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * (Pay special attention to section 4.2, Ontological Confusions, because I think it's a point I've haphazardly tried to make to you in the past). ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:56, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Bones
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiSdTQ9DW9g — Oxyaena Harass  06:00, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, a disco earworm, just what I wanted... Avida Dollarsher again 08:33, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

The "I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALwiki" article
Shouldn't we add to the examples section "The site is too centrist" and "The site is too communist"? Tinribmancer (talk) 09:13, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This site is massively anti-communist, I mean just look at any article about it here. 13:19, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I know, but because I read some comment a few topics up that some people accuse the site for being pro-communist... Tinribmancer (talk) 14:34, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If it's recent it's probably because A), I exist. And B), we are collectively to the left of Hitler. And as we all know from the Alt-righters and assorted idiots (who have LOGIC and FACTS!!!) Being to the left of anything on the far right makes you a Bad Person(tm) .  15:29, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I mean, imagine what you'd think if you were stupid enough to have the perception that Obama was a socialist. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:47, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This wiki is more socdem than anything else. — Oxyaena Harass  16:51, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Whose brilliant idea was it to make "social democrat" and "democratic socialist" different things? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:55, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Because they #are# different things (or at least WP thinks so). Anna Livia (talk) 18:19, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, and the joke I was trying to make is that it's a dumb distinction verbally. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:21, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

— Oxyaena Harass  07:21, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

BEHOLD
The new and improved site notice!!! — Oxyaena <font color="Burgundy">Harass  16:51, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * "Destroy Western Civilization"... Tinribmancer (talk) 17:00, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Muahahahaa. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Burgundy">Harass  17:04, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This is something that communists and fascists have in common: They know how to literally destroy an entire civilization.. Tinribmancer (talk) 17:08, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Is it? Communism has killed many people, but I can't think of a single case where it ended a civilization per se.  Fascism you could make a case for, you know, based on the whole active genocide thing.
 * But the real killer of civilizations in history has been colonialism. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:16, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * A picnic did destroy a civilisation here, and a meeting in the woods destroyed the USSR. Anna Livia (talk) 18:07, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * USSR was a nation, but it wasn't a civilization. It's not like the end(or beginning) of the soviet era brought about a demise of Russian(or baltic or balkan) culture, language, arts, and history.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:47, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I think the whole which is worse - fascism or communism is a lot of shite. despite being a horrorshow everywhere its tried, communism to me doesn't inherently mean millions will die. in places like western Europe, or the the us, home of the most ardent anti communists, its a pointless and meaningless endeavour which will never bare fruit. they sell some crappy newspapers, and considering the continued roll back of the welfare state, their only influence is a bogey man to warn against even the most minor improvements. fascism on the other hand is inherently about fucking people over, and is popular with fucknuts actually in power, is having a horrible influence on policy every where, and has some of the scarier thugs in grass roots. ardent anti communism may as well be ardent anti dalek for the actual 'threat' it represents, or just a convenient bogey man to justify their shitbaggery and self righteous 'struggle' AMassiveGay (talk) 19:08, 16 July 2019 (UTC)