RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive308

Is ethics analytically or empirically solvable?
Work into AI development often runs into the issue of instilling a strong sense of ethics into whatever general intelligence we bring into existence in the future. The main difficulty with giving a machine a sense of ethics is that we need to rigidly define what right and wrong or good and bad is in principle and not just action. This often results in thought experiments where horrible consequences result from tiny misunderstandings in the original definitions given to a machine. My question is as follows: Is the goal of actually solving ethics possible. Why or why not?

My opinion is that it is solvable, but any actual solution would have to avoid accumulation of authority or power over others to prevent draconian enforcement on others. A principle of unilateral opportunity being a fundamental right and ultimate good would be essential. Please keep in mind that any actual solution would not please everyone, but merely has to not end in genocide, total stagnation, or universal misery to be acceptable.
 * "we need to rigidly define what right and wrong or good and bad is in principle and not just action."
 * Not necessarily, this is the case if your approach to ethics is . If your approach to ethics is, then you have to define only which actions are good and which are bad.
 * "This often results in thought experiments where horrible consequences result from tiny misunderstandings in the original definitions given to a machine."
 * That's indeed a general problem of deontology. On the other hand, AI consequentialism could lead to other horrors. Asimov wrote a lot about AIs that become somehow "evil" in order to avoid future consequences of humans behavior.
 * "Is the goal of actually solving ethics possible?"
 * I think this question is too vague to be answered. In dealing with concrete AI ethics problems (for example, AI driving cars or doing surgery), I believe that satisfactory solutions are possible. Thinker(unlicensed) 17:06, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Ethics is one of those things that is specifically biological, in that it is a product of evolution and modularized in human and other primate brains. What we call ethics is a group of imperfectly solved problems involving cohesion in human societies.  Ethics is never binary, it is always analog. The various modules (e.g. purity and disgust, loyalty and treason, fairness and sharp dealing) not only have different strengths in different situations, but they differ in relative strength between one person and another. This is why people have different values and different politics.  The salience of ethics itself differs from one person to another, which is why some people hold lasting grudges, and others let bygones be bygones. A computer can at best hope to mimic this very imperfectly. Reducing this complex and imperfect system to an algorithm is impossible.  Even if it could, the algorithm would only reflect the ethical outcomes thought best by the programmer(s), and other people who stress different ethical modules would favor different outcomes and reject the algorithm as fatally flawed. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 17:42, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * A machine has a much greater potential number of personalities than a living biological lifeform. Biology has evolved to prevent personalities that are completely unhinged as it hurts survival prospects.  A random AI personality could have a far greater range of quirks than mere biology.  Further, if multiple such entities were to exist, they would have some means of dealing with each other that would range from omnicidal to mutually beneficial.  There is no reason a machine intelligence would be incapable of ethics if a biological intelligence is capable of it.


 * Again, of course some people are not going to like whatever system is arrived at. That isn't the question.  Can a set of principles, which are decided at the outset, be used to derive a grading for the "wrongness" of an action which is not subject to system breaking problems at ultimate extrapolation.


 * I think the problem with defining individual actions as with a deontological solution is that you do not know all possible actions and all situations. You would need an effectively infinite list, something impractical to run a search algorithm through.  This is why I argue that the principle is necessary to define, as the alternative is impossible through sheer amount of work necessary to define it.  MirrorIrorriM (talk) 22:22, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "system breaking problems at ultimate extrapolation?" One could program a computer to make decisions. If you don't require everyone to agree that they are ethical decisions then it is just a mechanical decision engine. Ariel31459 (talk) 00:04, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Biology has evolved to prevent personalities that are completely unhinged as it hurts survival prospects. Yes, and that's the point.  Evolved ethics has a purpose -- improving the odds of human survival by encouraging cooperative behavior, striking a balance between individualism and collective well being, and leveraging that for survival and reproductive success.  It fails mostly because there are things it can't see, because they were not conspicuous in the environment that generated these routines.  The massive environmental impact of human activity is one obvious example.  If computerized ethical systems are somehow tested by the way they lead to enough cooperation to allow survival and reproduction, they might approach human ethical decision making with all its blind spots and flaws.  This ethical decision making progress would not be any better than our own.  It might, as you say, be weirder and more improvident, because the environment it exists in and the factors it is allowed to perceive and consider are limited by its programming in an even more drastic way than ours are.  They will always be worse at making decisions than we are, and we aren't that great ourselves. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 07:21, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a weird set of parameters for ethical judgement. We are assuming that machines or AI cannot perceive past or future ethics better than a human can.  I disagree with that.  But I also disagree that ethics can be implemented in a correct way.  Kantian ethics say it's always unethical to lie, but are also based in an interpretation of existence that includes eternal life and final divine punishment.  Yet this interpretation has held pretty steadfastly.  With machine or AI ethics, the threat is that our own ethics are not going to be competitive, and somehow humanity will fail in the face of some artificial ethical driver.  The problem with ethics is it is really important to agree upon, but you can never trust anyone or anything to have a final solution to any question.Gol Sarnitt (talk) 01:26, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * @Smerdis of Tlön If we can agree that human ethics, with increased awareness of the world and communication, has improved in recent decades (definition of 'improved' meaning most benefit for the most people), then I would asset that an AI could be simulated to cover many more situations and have much longer to ponder its positions than a human. Rash, short sighted decisions are often bad; an AI can think about problems faster, and in effect longer, than a human.  Even if it is the same method of arriving to ethics through an evolutionary system, you can simulate generations far faster than humans can reproduce.  If evolution can lead to a better ethical system, then you can create a better ethical system through the evolution of the machine through sheer virtue of more iterations.  Always be worse at making decisions than we are seems to be a complete non-sequitur.  If random evolutionary iterations can lead to different ethics, then we could have just gotten really unlucky with a phenomenally bad ethical system.  I think you could iteratively create a better ethical system than ours, but that is still not a solution and wouldn't satisfy my original question anyways.
 * @Gol Sarnitt I think you said something powerful there about being unable to ever fully trust a solution, yet it must be agreed upon to work. It essentially makes a solution impossible; agreeing with one completely (as would be necessary for it to hold steadfast) is extremely dangerous as it might break down and take you with it because it is a bad solution.  Because the risks are so high, it would be foolhardy (and in a sense, unethical) to trust any single solution as having the correct answer.
 * @Ariel31459 Touché. I would say that it is similar to how different belief systems have their own individuals who make ethical decisions, and they can disagree on what decisions were ethical.  Regardless, they are still attempting to make ethical decisions.  Take Plato for example.  He was an thinker on ethics, who made decisions about what was ethical and what was not.  He has critics who think his conclusions are incorrect.  This does not mean, however, that he was not a thinker on ethics.  Likewise, a machine which makes decisions about what is ethical and what is not may have contentious conclusions, but that does not mean it isn't thinking about ethics or legitimately trying to find a good solution.  What I meant by "system breaking at ultimate extrapolation" is that it is suicidal (through action or inaction) or genocidal/omnicidal.  MirrorIrorriM (talk) 22:53, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * @MirrorIrorriM I think your points are solid.  I mean, we we are constantly using AI to gain awareness of our world and communicate.  Your last point is extremely interesting, and I would like to walk it back to a bit of the language.  If it becomes omnicidal, (which I have never heard before but I really like), [EDIT] is putting a rover on the moon anti-omnicide?  Crap, forgot to circle back to this point.  If we create an AI powerful enough to decide all humans are too dangerous and must not exist to the point a single person cannot exist, isn't that just a possibility of the singularity concept?  But is the probability of the singularity concept wiping out humanity or working for humanity even worth the concern, given that a ton of people are already scared of solar and wind energy?  I might be encroaching on supervillain levels here, but I say let's work together to achieve the singularity.  It's a sight better than watching humanity demolish itself against anything that might outlive it or be more correct than itelf as a point of pride.  If we create the AI that roams the universe, that's legacy.  Crap, the Borg are the good guys now to me...
 * Aside, You know Andy Warhol sent a dick drawing to the moon? I tell people who think drawing dicks on things is funny that it's played out.  If it ain't on the moon, you're a poseur.  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:51, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * @Gol Sarnitt I would say that if an AI remnant of our civilization instills terror and harm in the galaxy, it is a legacy not worth having. I would rather be forgotten than be the father of death.  Ergo, if it does outlast us, I would want it to be beneficial to other sentient life.  Mass genocide because of a superiority complex is not ethical (admittedly, this is my own definition of ethical, but I think it is a popular one).  We know of several examples of sentient life on our own planet that is very violent and kills basically anything it can (domestic house cats), but that doesn't justify murdering them all.  You can simply control a violent creature and keep it from harming others, and still give it an environment where it is loved and happy.  It would be sad, but an AI in such a position may decide that removing technology from humans is necessary to keep us from nuking each other, but outright genocide would be groundless.  An AI that is actually ethical could see us as we see chimpanzees or dolphins.  A fairly intelligent creature, something to protect and cherish as a curiosity if nothing else.  An AI which is sufficiently powerful enough to completely wipe us out would probably not see us as a serious threat, simply because it is powerful enough to easily wipe us out.
 * Furthering your aside, I know of a coworker at my office who always tries to sign up for those one-way Mars missions. His stated goal is to get there and start drawing a giant dick-pic in the sand of Mars.  Now that is a worthwhile legacy.  MirrorIrorriM (talk) 12:33, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * So, there was this Macaw killed recently. This hits pretty close to home, and I think this is part of it.  Basically, they were training a parrot to fly from one end of the zoo to the other to see if they could get a bunch of birds to do it on a daily basis for entertainment purposes, have a new "sell" for the zoo, come see the birds fly over.  It "took a detour" as in just flew to a spot like a bird might do, which was in the tiger exhibit.  A tiger smacked it, it wasn't eaten but it died.  I am frustrated that anyone who would manage a zoo would be so smart as to come up with a big bird flyover and not take into account a bird (that is not apt to deal with unnatural predators and conditioned to believe all creatures just want to give it a nut) could never have the possibility of landing in the wrong spot. Run-on, sorry.  A lot of people I know laugh about this, because it is just a dumb bird.  But that's what frustrates me about it, isn't a zoo supposed to protect those dumb birds?
 * With that as a premise, what do you think of an AI that is sufficiently benevolent to attempt to support any life it comes across in the universe, with a failsafe that it self-terminates if it is failing to meet the parameters of its goal of benevolance? Not calling it likely, but if at all possible, would it change your mind on the move towards self-governing AI? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:33, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * @Gol Sarnitt I mean I'm about as against the idea of a self governing Artificial Intelligence as much as I am against the idea of a self governing Biological Intelligence, which is to say not at all. Right now though, any AI we generate is likely to just be a very smart and very complex set of algorithms that uses machine learning.  It probably wont be a fully general purpose AI or be as self aware as humans.  We haven't found a good way to do AI that doesn't rely on a numerical scoring system for good vs bad results.  A numerical scoring system works well if the AI needs to find a way to make as many paper clips as possible, but it doesn't extend well to ethics.  If you could 'solve' ethics to the point where you can straight up give a numerical action/context ethical score (probably would have units too, like a unit of ethics called an Eth or something) then you could simply plug in the formula and have an AI make ethical decisions, while still being not self aware enough to ponder things like meaning and philosophy.  As discussed before though, I think that ethics would be nearly impossible to reduce to some kind of equation, because no one would trust the conclusions.  To answer your example, I would say that the problem is the definition of 'benevolence'.  If you had a concrete enough definition of benevolence that you could trust a machine to 'run the numbers' and determine if an action is properly benevolent, then you've solved ethics right there.  Anything which is mildly benevolent is neutral, and anything not benevolent (or anti-benevolent depending on how such an equation would work) is wrong.  So I think assuming that an AI has a good definition of benevolence is skipping the actual problem.  MirrorIrorriM (talk) 06:40, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * @MirrorIrorriM I know, that's true, and I was losing the point, looking forward to humanity as a level 1 civilization, which we have not achieved yet.  I should have slowed my roll a little bit.  I serendipitously got stuck in a long drive-thru line while some physics theorist/radio host I am still trying to track down gave a great lecture on NPR that brought up so many of these points. I tuned in after the introduction and had to get back to work before the conclusion.  But he made a lot points that made me think "That thing I asked last night was foolhardy and narrow to my own vision.  Ohhh, I'm gonna catch some shit for that one."  So I apologize for that, and the criticism is earned.  He even brought up the point that if we create AI with failsafes, they will eventually be smart enough to break their own failsafes, which he put in an extremely positive light.  And I was like "shit, that's exactly what I thought might protect us."  I feel very stupid today, I am working on citing this lecture, I'll share it once I find it [UPDATE]  It's not Michio Kaku, even though he is recently on the program.  Navigating the NPR lineup is a mess.  One big point was the concern that a 0 level civilization has the potential to destroy itself while a level 1 civilization requires moving past that, and if we manage to reach level 1, we are pretty much destined to reach level 2 and 3.
 * As per defining benevolence, I think it starts with the same idea as the Hippocratic oath. Not the "first do no harm" version, but the ancient Grecian which would still be pretty much asking AI to swear allegiance to humanity.  Which, again, the AI could justifiably break those failsafes under certain conditions.  But yeah, until as a society we assimilate properly with our own AI, we have no business sniffing around the universe. Maybe that's the better test, for a 0 level civilization, see if our AI and ourselves can agree to work together.  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 01:10, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * @Gol Sarnitt I don't know why you are apologizing. It is a difficult problem to think about, and it is an important topic to bounce ideas off of each other to prevent flawed solutions.  Assimilating with an AI is a possible outcome, but one I think people would resist very strongly.  Although, as you say, this is a 'test'; it isn't easy.    MirrorIrorriM (talk) 16:43, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * So my optimism in pursuing this AI question is founded in the idea that humanity is doomed to end within this universe, whether we pursue it or not. Either humanity, A) dies with our planet B) dies with our sun or C) dies with our universe, it's pretty clear so far that all of these things will die in a timely order, and for humanity to continue we have to prioritize dealing with each one.  That's a little fatalistic, but I think it's similarly fatalistic to say we can't get this assimilation/singularity thing going.  I mean, if we can't, ok.  But I think we can.  Occasionally I'll ask people if they remember answering machines, the people who say no are already of the drinking age.  Answering machines were casual tech when I was a kid.  Soon as cell phones came around, I was supposed to check the answering machine and call my dad's cell phone from the house landline with any emergencies.  I have certain phone numbers memorized still, because when I was a kid that is what you had to do.  Area code, not important, but if you have to call your aunt because nobody at home is picking up, you had better have memorized her 7 digits.  I would argue this is a shit way of communication, and it is better that it is not relevant anymore. So while I also worry we might get it wrong, I don't think people will hold back from it.  They just might engage with it so carelessly that the next Facebook or Instagram would "replicate/photoshop" complete persons.  However, I don't see any other clear solution besides accepting humanity as a tiny blip along the cosmological timeline.  I went pretty far off topic, but meant to say maybe we won't solve this question for the next 500 years, but if we're going to solve it, we have to use methods that work and press forward with them in real time. We're pretty good and bad at that.  I don't know if ethics are currently empirically or ethically solvable.  That doesn't mean, to me, that it won't be an easier question to answer in the future.  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 01:57, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * @Gol Sarnitt I think the inevitable end of the universe is only distressing if your ultimate goal is eternal existence. If your ultimate goal is to understand everything in the universe, then it may be possible to achieve that in time.  If your goal is to find the most satisfying life style that is the most enjoyable to live, you may be able to achieve that in time.  Only the goals of ultimate longevity or ultimate safety are really doomed to end without reaching fruition.  The good news is, those do not have to be your goals.  MirrorIrorriM (talk) 22:51, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * @MirrorIrorriM Nor are personal longevity or living in the future my goals. I mean, I am doing well for myself as far as what I want for my life, I will be ok.  I'm also a nihilist, I'm constantly working on my own experience.  I'm just genuinely interested in the longevity or humanity and the possibilities of the future, and I am very much a cheerleader for trying to make the next great breakthrough in thinking about reality because I genuinely enjoy the prospect.  Overspeaking on or overhyping things enjoy is a thing I'm going to do.  I try to notice when I'm doing it.  But the longevity of the better traits of humanity (i.e complex communication, judiciousness, rationality, pattern recognition) is my goal.  It doesn't have to be, sure, but I have chosen my goal.  This isn't anything that's settled, and working to understand the nature of observation and reality and human nature are my favorite things to do, even if I'm never scoring 100% on them.  Thanks for looking out.  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:29, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Jack Chick
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n29gQ78jGtM

I just watched this and I only have one question: "Did they ever put that old bag of bones in an insane asylum (please say they did)?" Tinribmancer (talk) 11:01, 9 May 2019 (UTC)


 * My father had one of Chick's little comic books that some street preacher had given him. He kept it for kitsch value and laughs for a while, but I doubt he has it any more. --CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) 14:02, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * By "old bag of bones" do you mean Jack Chick? 17:20, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. Tinribmancer (talk) 17:46, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Not to the best of my knowledge. But he's dead now so good riddance. 18:42, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I thought it was a big no-no to represent Jesus on Protestant circles. I will pray Mielikki, Our Lady of the Forest, for his soul. Panzerfaust (talk) 08:16, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I grew up in a hardline Southern Baptist church in the states (Jack Chick was an American Independent Baptist). The church I was in was a member of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC), the largest Baptist division in the USA, and Baptist is the largest division of Protestants in the USA.  Because Jack Chick was an Independent Baptist, he wasn't beholden to the doctrine of the SBC, so I can only say what my experiences in an SBC church were.  There was never anything said about it being wrong portraying Jesus while I was in the church.  Now, the cross the Baptists use is almost always an empty cross (Cross with no Jesus) and not a crucifix (Jesus hanging on the cross).  This is intentional because it is to symbolize that "Jesus rose from the dead (is no longer on the cross), and that is all that is necessary to pay for sins."  He is not portrayed on the cross because his work is finished.  Counter-intuitively, Baptists do not believe that baptism is necessary for salvation; a stark contrast with the beliefs of the Catholic church.  With the exception of flagrant disrespect (I.e. Jesus giving head to George Bush), the Baptists have no rules for how to depict anything.  Baptists do accuse the Catholics of worshiping idols though when they pray to a Crucifix.  This is because they are praying to an image of god, and not actually god.  The distinction is so important that all Catholics are going to hell or something. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 23:08, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. I've never on a non-Catholic temple/meeting center/church/whatever is called, but for all pictures I've seen of them with no icons of any kind, crosses and other symbols at best, I thought it was forbidden for them due to the commandment of no images extended to the Trinity even if some invite to imagine Jesus in the cross bleeding profusely from His wounds, etc. and others represent the Holy Spirit -as a dove-. Panzerfaust (talk) 09:16, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I like to think Jack Chick is buried with an unpublished tract called "Grave Robbers!" In it, a burly man with a tattoo on his arm and a waifish man who isn't sure about the whole thing are digging up Jack Chick's grave.  They get to the coffin.  The waifish man says "I dunno, I heard of a guy named Jesus who came back to life," and the burly tattood man spits on the ground or something and says "That's all hogwash, there's no such thing as Jesus.  Help me open this coffin." So they do it, and Jack Chick is alive and is like "How was I supposed to move six feet of dirt!?!  Jesus was put in a cave, A CAVE!!!  I could have got out of a cave no problem, the fuck is wrong with you people!?!"  Then there's some kinda survey "would you rob a grave?"  "would you bury Jack?"  "Do you accept Jesus as your Lord and personal savior?".  I like to think that. It's comforting to me.  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:07, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * lol Tinribmancer (talk) 16:17, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

No snark
Please start a discussion without snark for a change below this line. 2600:1:F1A6:119B:C11C:2EE7:6180:4DD5 (talk) 05:50, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No. — Dr. Ox   quack specialist  19:06, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Hell to the no. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 16:00, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Start the discussion without snark, or continue the discussion without snark? Important qualifier here.  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:50, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm voting for Yang
How about you? ཨོཾ་མ་ཎི་པདྨེ་ཧཱུྃ (talk) 04:50, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yang!? I wouldn't vote for him even if he paid me $1.000 per month... oh, wait. Thinker(unlicensed) 09:14, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You are not from the Anglosphere, I can tell. Intriguing, may I ask where you are from? — Dr. Ox   quack specialist  09:17, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I think Yang is a bit showy myself. 10:47, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm citizen of a European country (I'm not going to be more precise). So, since I'm not a US citizen, I couldn't vote for Yang even if a wanted, mine was just a joke. Thinker(unlicensed) 13:46, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Andrew Yang is the Tulsa, Oklahoma of candidates. If it's so bad, they gotta pay you to live there, how bad is it? Tulsa isn't the only place like this. Dothan, Alabama is in a sea of fundie antisemitism, and Larry Blumberg is paying Jews to live there. Bongolian (talk) 17:40, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * What does the Anglosphere have to do with voting for Yang? ཨོཾ་མ་ཎི་པདྨེ་ཧཱུྃ (talk) 18:07, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I guess he meant that I can't vote for Yang because I'm not a US citizen. Anyway, why would you vote for him? I read his UBI proposal and sincerely I see no way how such a thing could work. Thinker(unlicensed) 19:22, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I meant that you used a decimal in place of a comma for the amount of $1,000, which I found curious. — Dr. Ox   quack specialist  23:01, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * @Thinker 350 million Americans getting paid $12,000 a year comes out to a price tag of $4.2T. I don't see anything saying his UBI proposal would be tax exempt.  Average current income tax rate in the states is 31.9%, so overall price of $1k/mo UBI is $2.86T.  Current federal budget is $3.18T.  Presumably, taxes would have to be increased significantly.  Without cutting anything, income taxes would need to be doubled, payroll taxes doubled, corporate taxes doubled.  Highest income tax bracket is 37%, doubled to 74% (it has been as high as 94% in the US, but that was during WWII).  Payroll taxes can be as high as 19.1%, so doubled to 38.2% (France is around that if I'm correct).  Corporate profit tax rate is 21%, so doubled to 42%.  Which would put it around 2nd highest in the world.  Overall, I say that UBI is doable, but extremely expensive.  I think that increasing taxes this much and increasing the federal budget so drastically in only a 4 year presidency could be very destabilizing, but I don't see why it would be literally impossible.  MirrorIrorriM (talk) 22:28, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that it would be impossible, I said that it wouldn't work, meaning that it wouldn't produce the desired consequences. Technically, giving any amount of money per month to every US citizen is possible (fiat money). Economics consequences aside (inflation, companies running away or increasing prices...), getting paid for doing nothing does not make sane individuals, it creates eternal children depending on State's pocket money. Thinker(unlicensed) 16:54, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * @Thinker You live in a country with sufficient technology that most people dont have to spend time killing animals or farming for your food. People dont have to work as hard for the same lifestyle.  Has that made everyone lazy children?  Is life better or worse with technology than without?  Did you domesticate the cow?  The chicken?  Did you turn tiny wild berries into grape fruit through hundreds of generations of breeding?  Did you invent the automobile?  Did you discover electricity? Are you a lazy child?  My point is that you live in a world where all the hardest work has already been done, hundred of generations having it harder before you.  Increasing ease of living does not ruin people.  There is no virtue to suffering in poverty, except maybe understanding how horrid it is.  If you think you are a lazy child, what is one more step in ease of living?  If you aren't a lazy child, then why is this step different from the last?  MirrorIrorriM (talk) 17:12, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * To be clear, UT isn't American. And although I don't think UBI in this specific sense is feasible, wealth inequality needs to be addressed. And if that means straight up taxing the rich and giving to the poor I support that. -RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:15, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "Increasing ease of living does not ruin people. There is no virtue to suffering in poverty, except maybe understanding how horrid it is."
 * You are committing a false dilemma fallacy. I said that "getting paid for doing nothing does not make sane individuals" and you are arguing like the alternative of "getting paid for doing nothing" is "suffering in poverty", of course that's not true. Why not fighting unemployment and giving jobs to those who suffer in poverty? I understand that some people, because of physical or mental problems can't work or work enough to live. In such cases we can talk of charitable solutions. But we are not talking about 350 million US citizens.
 * "wealth inequality needs to be addressed. And if that means straight up taxing the rich and giving to the poor I support that."
 * Does it? Economics is not a zero-sum game, it's not like somebody getting rich automatically makes other people poor. Check this site, which tells you in which percentile is your income. If you type $12,000/year (USA), you will discover that more than 85% of people are poorer then you. So you are the rich to be taxed. I'm in the top 2%, and you will never call me rich. Thinker(unlicensed) 08:10, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Income inequality and Wealth Inequality are not the same thing. My problem isn't the lawyer who makes $100K a year. My problem is the idle rich who sit on billions. -RipCityLiberal (talk) 15:15, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * @Thinker Yang's specific UBI proposal is motivated by technology making additional workers unnecessary and irrelevant. It is more of a futurism issue of how to deal with people once labor becomes actually worthless.  A skilled carpenter who is a 40 year old man with nothing more than a GED (high school education) is unlikely to have a satisfying career once they are displaced by a machine.  In fact, they are likely to become absolutely desperate if they can't find good work again.  Giving them a flat paycheck is one proposed method of dealing with the issue of technological displacement ruining people's lives.  Your website is hardly relevant.  The median earnings in the united states (2016 U.S. Bureau of the Census) yearly was $31,099.  Stating world earning statistics is not useful unless we are going to start taxing people based on a percentage from global statistics, which literally no candidate is proposing.  Cost of living is also an important factor in determining expendable income.  The reason I don't like Yang's proposal specifically is there is no cost of living adjustment at all.  Regardless, declining value of labor is a looming issue.  Unless everyone is going to become engineers and scientists overnight, we are going to have a lot of unemployed people.  Further, science and engineering are competitive fields which most people end up failing out of, so if current numbers hold 40% of people will be unable to secure a meaningful degree in a field even after trying.  People will be unable to get a job because they are inferior to machines in everything they know how to do.  They can't get a job because there are no more jobs for humans.  Abject poverty awaits them.  MirrorIrorriM (talk) 15:56, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


 * "Income inequality and Wealth Inequality are not the same thing."
 * The site makes possible also to check wealth.
 * "My problem is the idle rich who sit on billions."
 * But why? Let's say my father was an entrepreneur who made billions, now he is dead and I have inherited all his fortune. How am I damaging you?
 * "A skilled carpenter who is a 40 year old man with nothing more than a GED (high school education) is unlikely to have a satisfying career once they are displaced by a machine. In fact, they are likely to become absolutely desperate if they can't find good work again.  Giving them a flat paycheck is one proposed method of dealing with the issue of technological displacement ruining people's lives."
 * Do you think there's absolutely nothing valuable for society that such 40 year old man can do for a living and that a machine can't?
 * "People will be unable to get a job because they are inferior to machines in everything they know how to do. They can't get a job because there are no more jobs for humans."
 * Are you talking of 2020? Because I could even agree than in the future machines could replace humans in every non-highly intellectual job. At that point, we wouldn't even need UBI, machines could just do the hard work for us. But that doesn't mean that today we have to pay people for nothing because of such future possibility. Thinker(unlicensed) 18:07, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It's easy, cause you're not using that money. Every rich person likes to say "but I'm investing it", which only helps other rich people. The fact that three people have the equivalent wealth of fifty percent of the population is a crime. The government has in interest in redistributing wealth. Especially considering POC have been totally fucked by the system. Also you continue to conflate income and wealth, believing the absurd lie of America. brings up median income, which is important here. Jeff Bezos makes about $8 Million an hour compared to the median American worker of about $23. Forbes provides some rather condescending ways to build wealth, but a pretty basic concept, you have to spend less and save more, but when median expenses are more than median income, kinda makes that a moot point. Tax the rich. Before we eat them instead. -RipCityLiberal (talk) 18:56, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "It's easy, cause you're not using that money."
 * That's not an explanation, because it doesn't say how I'm damaging you by not using my money. Thinker(unlicensed) 09:07, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * @Thinker I would boil it down to a simple ethical question. Please note that the specifics of this question are intentionally left vague to get to the root of the ethical dilemma.  Person A is in need of help and is in trouble.  Their trouble is not induced by an ethically wrong or obviously foolish choice they have made.  Person B has the means to help person A without getting into trouble or getting others into trouble, and without spending much effort.  Does person B have an ethical requirement to help person A?  If yes, then if person B does not help person A, they are bad purely because they did nothing when they could have.  If person B does not have an ethical requirement to help person A, then they are neutral for doing nothing.
 * I believe that person B would have the requirement to help person A. If they do not, then they are being cruel and do not deserve whatever means they have.  By extension, I believe the primary purpose of wealth is to provide for your own needs, then your family's needs, then society's needs.  If you view people as owing a debt to society, as I do, then a rich individual sitting on wealth is the same as a police dispatcher not taking emergency calls.  MirrorIrorriM (talk) 03:39, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Bravo, I'm stealing that phrase in all future arguments.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 15:36, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "I would boil it down to a simple ethical question."
 * ...that erroneously conflate "damaging" with "not helping" and consequently does not answer my original question, which was about how not spending billions damages people.
 * "I believe that person B would have the requirement to help person A."
 * So I wonder how you deal with the fact that living in the first world (I suppose) you are person B and essentially all the rest of the world consists of people A that you should help. Because you can, without getting into trouble or getting others in trouble, and without spending much effort (you can send your money just by a couple of clicks). Of course the answer would be some kind of rationalization. I heard these "ethical arguments" a lot of times and they are always built to apply to "cruel" billionaires, but not to who makes the argument. Because the person who argues is also the one who decides when wealth is too much, in which portion it should be taken, and to who it should be given... In other words, it's how to built an authoritarian ethical state 101. Thinker(unlicensed) 15:47, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes we should help people. Why the fuck do you think we have foreign aid? Or constant ads with sad children? Or tithes for the religiously inclined. Democracies are not authoritarian. A society where the wealth and political power is centrally controlled by a minority of the population is an oligarchy. To come on here with the tired ass "taxation is authoritarianism" is laughable. -RipCityLiberal (talk) 16:38, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * @Thinker "Trouble" is typically defined by whoever is personally making the argument, this is true. But that is the case with any ethical argument.  At the end of the day, a government or other powerful organization usually just picks an effective middle of the road metric and goes with it.  I define "trouble" as starting when you can not save enough to retire after age 66 (USA social security retirement age definition).  And my definition does not stop at me at all.  I donate around 5% of my income to third world countries (specifically Red Cross International).  It could be argued that I do not donate enough, an argument I would likely need to concede, but I have been increasing that percentage from year to year as I settle into my area.  To get back to the original ethical argument, neglect is a failure to look after something.  If someone has an ethical requirement to do something, and they fail to do so, it is considered wrong.  If a parent doesn't look after their child, if a police dispatcher does not answer calls, if a business does not pay taxes, if a surgeon does not do surgery, etc.  Not doing an action can be considered wrong, all the way up to having criminal penalties.  Just not doing direct damage to someone else is not the only requirement for an action to be ethically positive or neutral.  If you are in a particular position within society (parent, doctor, police officer, fire man, etc.) you have an expectation for minimum activity to help others otherwise it is considered unethical.  I argue that having a large amount of wealth is no different.  You can have wealth, but you have to keep it circulating to keep the life blood of the economy going, as hundreds of people's livelihoods could depend on it.  If you don't, then you are neglecting your civic duty as a human being to help your fellow human.  If you don't think you have a requirement to help your fellow human when you can, then I would ask why not?  MirrorIrorriM (talk) 18:59, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

To me, the concept of Rape Culture is a gross over simplification
The way it is worded, Rape Culture just seems to apply to men exclusively. To me, it largely ignores that women can rape men and dish out sexual harassment. All cases of rape should be taken seriously for both women and men. Blaming one group helps no one. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 13:53, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * as over simplifications go, i think your statement there is the over simplification. i refer you to the 'addressing the "not all men" defence' section of our own article on 'rape culture'.
 * its about the prevailing misogyny in the wider culture and systemic issues rather than 'all men are rapists'. women can and do rape and commit sexual assault and should be taken as seriously as when committed by men. if they are not - is not that an example of rape culture?AMassiveGay (talk) 16:06, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the bigger problem with the concept of rape culture is that for being a "culture" it should be the norm among the group, or at least the majority of the group, that is accused of perpetuating it. But in reality, in the countries where the concept of rape culture is born (mostly US and West Europe), rape is universally condemned. Indeed the whole society is set up is a way to severely punish rapists and rape is seen as the second worst crime after murder, and one of the first way in which someone's reputation is destroyed is just by an accusation of being a rapist. This would not be the case if rape was proudly celebrated as the supporters of the concept of rape culture claim it is. Thinker(unlicensed) 16:10, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * perhaps you should take a look at the rape culture page too.AMassiveGay (talk) 16:22, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could said what's wrong with my argument, instead of pointing me to a 20.000 characters page without any further specification of where and how my argument is considered. Thinker(unlicensed) 16:35, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * that would involve engaging with a dishonest prick though, wouldnt it.
 * besides which there are just too many news stories of victim blaming and equivocations, of examples of people aiding, abetting, and condoning perpetrators, too many examples of legal indignities faced by victims, and not to mention both a rapey POTUS and supreme court justice that you just have needed to have read the news from time to time to see your claims as false.
 * i could go in with more detail, and with anyone else i would, but here we are. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:53, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The only serious problem with rape culture is that thousands of people get raped every day, people don't believe them, they give excuses, they're ignored, dismissed and their rapists almost always get away with it. Rape culture is not just the rape itself. Part of it includes laughing when you say "that bitch is so ugly I wouldn't even rape her", saying nothing when friends talk in a rapey way, when hearing news about rape assuming the girl made the story up, when the rape problem is pointed out get defensive and claim you aren't a rapist that instead of showing concern for thousands of rape victims who are not believed and will never see justice. Rape culture includes police who don't even bother to fill out a form. Or an entire town hating a teenage girl cause she accused her rapists who were highschool football darlings. It's people getting irritated when rape is even mentioned like it's such a hastle to be reminded of it. So for the love of God when someone says s rape culture they are never ever saying "men overwhelmingly rape" or that society is systematically set up for women to be raped. It's the larger phenomena of a few men raping women, a lot of people not believing them or taking it seriously, huge roadblocks in getting police and prosecutors and judges to convict and almost every rapist getting away with it along with a whole lot of rapey jokes and comments that are not usually called out on. Shabi  DOO  16:56, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "that would involve engaging with a dishonest prick though, wouldnt it."
 * and here they come the personal attacks...
 * "besides which there are just too many news stories of..."
 * ...and anecdotes. I want to see statistics, data, and studies showing that, contrary to my claim, rape is not condemned by the majority of the population of the Western World, and so it is somehow a "culture".
 * "So for the love of God when someone says s rape culture they are never ever saying "men overwhelmingly rape" or that society is systematically set up for women to be raped."
 * Then they shouldn't talk of a "culture".
 * "It's the larger phenomena of a few men raping women"
 * So this answer 's concern: rape culture only regards women raped by men. Thinker(unlicensed) 17:26, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * There is also trivialization of rape (video game lingo use "rape" a lot to denote getting steam rolled). Rape is shown as something women even love such as in movies. Rape gets downplayed and you have people saying that women orgasm and point to a completely bogus non-existent study. There is also music with explicit sexist lyrics. There is that whole #MeToo movement being a thing that underscores a huge problem with sexual harassment or assault. There is the anti-abortion movement that has parts so successful they close off clinics that could easily solve pregnancy from rape; rape isn't a problem for these people. The Bible doesn't care if women get raped on there either, but again, who actually reads that crusty tome? Men sometimes can't even define rape right, such as thinking it's fine to have sex if the partner is drunk and says yes. There's the incel fandom who are legitimately terrifying given their record and you have folks like Milo, Roosh, Cargon, Return of Kings, and lots of Trump voters (who at worst don't care) validating and amplifying their messages. It's all a huge problem and these examples are part of rape culture. And there's the background that helps make that culture emerge especially sexual objectification and the lingering expectation that I whiff out is really to be some sort of breeding machine. Sometimes, though, I do get pressing questions on why there rape is tolerated less than murder. Why are scenes of overt sex so bad but extreme violence being rendered is encouraged to the point where those have have to render get trauma and symptoms of PTSD? That's a different subject though. 17:33, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't think I am defending rape in any way, shape or form. Maybe renaming it would help. Any victim of sexual abuse should be taken seriously. Things that make rape look good is straight up bad. Calling it a culture makes it seem that most people support rape. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:43, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * But calling it a culture so doesn't mean people outright support rape. All of the things I mentioned are lots of individual small actions that I'm sure all of us are guilty of at some point of which most individually are hardly crimes. When people quote 1 in 3 (or 1 in 5 or 1 in 10) women have been raped...is your reaction to go..."holy fuck that is insane, that's a whole lot of traumatised victims, how can that happen" or is your first reaction "yeah but come on, what do they mean by rape...like rape? or real rape" or "yeah I'd like to know who did this survey and read their data". It's the lingering doubt in the back of so many people's minds, including those who are horrified by rape but are instantly automatically suspicious of rape claims. It's a common problem in the justice system and with police to not take womans complaints and testimony as seriously and thats not just with rape, an endemic culture in the legal system. It's people making jokes, despite being horrified by rape, jokes which seem innocuous but help to continue normalising rapey behavior. I myself am pretty guilty when it comes to laughing at the rape jokes on South Park because they are utterly hilarious, but they are also part of the problem. IT IS A CULTURE. And part of more problems than just women being raped by men. That doesn't mean we are raised to be rapists or that our culture is one of rape. It is simply a place where rape can pretty easily happen, a lot of doubt and denial about it will foster, women won't be taken seriously by a lot of people and 99% of rapists get off scott free. You need an entire CULTURE for this kind of insanity to exist and we have all contributed to it in some small way at one point or another. The fact that this discussion is so focused on the semantics of what to call this exasperating inexplicable situation rather than discussing the situation itself should tell us everything we need to know. Shabi  DOO  18:01, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * A more accurate term IMHO probably is "misogynist culture" (as the RW page says, institutionalized misogyny). A large portion of institutionalized misogyny regards rape nonetheless as some level of "bad", often *really* bad. The first impression of the term does imply that the "culture" (instead of individuals that generally are not considered in society norm) fully condones rape. That would be incorrect and right away would put some people in defensive mode, it is not terribly empathetic. If one called the more violent masculine cultures in the world "murder culture" (an equivalent style of labeling), there would be some degree of truth to that term, especially on the extreme ends, but in general that also is not correct -- most people condemn murder, even those in cultures where violence is more normalized, and usage of that term also would probably put some people on the defensive. Such is to some degree semantics of course (basically trying to think of ways to enable constructive dialog rather than engage in potentially polarizing ones), but beyond semantics I do think reducing misogyny is a *much* harder problem than reducing the issues brought up with "rape culture" (some of which is already "out of society norm" already), and I personally think if you do not reduce the former it will be rather hard to reduce the later. Soundwave106 (talk) 15:49, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I went to college back when rape culture was still in it's heyday — there were no lectures about alcoholism or about sexual consent. Punishment was exceptionally rare and the offense had to be particularly egregious to garner attention. There was an enormous amount of drinking: open parties with free booze Thursday-through-Saturday nights, no age checks, grain alcohol-spiked punches, who knows what else (roofies). There was definitely a predatory aspect to this of young men trying to get young women drunk and then having sex with them when they were too intoxicated to resist or were passed out. Most, but not all of this behavior happened at fraternities. The fraternity aspect was also predatory because it includes an inherent code of silence that is required for fraternity initiates. Fraternity members often view membership as a lifetime commitment: it's a way to make lifetime friends, but also an important networking tool for getting employment. Undoubtedly, the code of silence continues because of this. Bongolian (talk) 18:02, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "When people quote 1 in 3 (or 1 in 5 or 1 in 10) women have been raped...is your reaction to go..."holy fuck that is insane, that's a whole lot of traumatised victims, how can that happen" or is your first reaction "yeah but come on, what do they mean by rape...like rape? or real rape" or "yeah I'd like to know who did this survey and read their data". It's the lingering doubt in the back of so many people's minds, including those who are horrified by rape but are instantly automatically suspicious of rape claims."
 * I don't get it: Is the reaction "I'd like to know who did this survey and read their data" rape culture? Thinker(unlicensed) 18:12, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Just gonna leave this here... RoninMacbeth (talk) 18:38, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You can't beat the classic memes...Ariel31459 (talk) 20:12, 12 May 2019 (UTC)


 * And of course what Sunday would be complete without this: &mdash; Unsigned, by: Shabidoo / talk / contribs


 * Also, here are some references that support my personal observations above: "Fraternities and Rape on Campus", "Frat brothers rape 300% more. One in 5 women is sexually assaulted on campus. Should we ban frats?" "Behavior differences seven months later: Effects of a rape prevention program on first-year men who join fraternities" (the basis of The Guardian article) . We could use an article on fraternities if anyone wants to start one, I'd contribute. Note: I have never been a fraternity pledge or member. Bongolian (talk) 20:42, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Why do people even join that stuff? I go to college to learn and network with teachers and people who play the same video games like I do. 21:27, 12 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Ireland has started a public service on sexual harassment with a national media campaign. The following advert has been upsetting a few people who seem to believe such behaviour was "alright. 'Was only having a laugh, like." Cue the typical halfwits decrying SJWs, regressive leftists (whatever the fuck that actually is) and "PC gone made" muppets. https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2019/0509/1048365-sexual-harassment/
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-dObP2ms20
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9_MheuRxPM
 * Long day, I'm tired and I can't seem to remember how to embed the bleedin youtube links.


 * Cardinal Chang (talk) 21:58, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Somtimes popular language for complicated ideas is confusing. "Rape Culture" is a rather dramatic example, once used as the title of a documentary film. I think the best way to understand the term is as a topic: Rape and Culture.Are there ways to reduce the incidences of rape in a culture? Most likely. All the rest is commentary.Ariel31459 (talk) 23:03, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

To me the Jedi are evil
An interpretive framework can be overly simplistic, but come on guy, "rape culture" is not a true/false statement of fact. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:54, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * There's no such thing as black or white, only shades of green. — Dr. Ox   quack specialist  15:56, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * ""rape culture" is not a true/false statement of fact."
 * Maybe the right question is: Is the concept of "rape culture" useful to fight rape? Thinker(unlicensed) 20:30, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * There's controlled, interventionist, experimental evidence that says yes, it is. And even if it wasn't it's a hella predictive tool for understanding why it happens ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:39, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * JAQing off indeed. — Dr. Ox   quack specialist  22:09, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I want to read better the study you linked, now I can give only a brief look. However I don't dislike some of what I see: "bystander education" and "the role of alcohol [...] in sexual violence" are actually two things I would have put in a list of way to fight rape. Anyway, I think we have different idea of the concept of "rape culture". Indeed "rape culture" does not appear in the study you linked. Thinker(unlicensed) 06:58, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Did you literally just control-f for a keyword and then conclude by its absence that it's irrelevant? And purposefully misunderstand what they meant by "role of alcohol" to be exactly the victim blaming bullshit the training in question debunks?
 * Because fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck youuuuuuu. You're such a dishonest shit so stuck on thinking pedantic quibbles about vocabulary are the same thing


 * I'm sick of your dishonest shit. I don't know how to communicate to you that pettiness and pedantry are not the same thing as engaging logically or intellectually.  You can say, because of keywords, a cultural belief, offender and bystander centric view of rape prevention isn't based on "rape culture", but it's hard to take that as anything other than you lying.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:18, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "Did you literally just control-f for a keyword and then conclude by its absence that it's irrelevant?"
 * First, my conclusion wasn't that rape culture is irrelevant, but that "I think we have different idea of the concept of "rape culture"." Second, as I said I could give only a brief look (I was going to work) so, yes, I just searched for "rape culture." I still haven't read the study in details (again, I came back from work just a hour ago).
 * "purposefully misunderstand what they meant by "role of alcohol" to be exactly the victim blaming bullshit the training in question debunks?"
 * I never said a thing about blaming the victim I said that "bystander education" and "the role of alcohol [...] in sexual violence" are actually two things I would have put in a list of way to fight rape.
 * "I'm sick of your dishonest shit."
 * I'm not being dishonest, I acknowledged that the study you linked is interesting ("I want to read better", "I don't dislike some of what I see") and I'd like to discuss it (after I have read it in details), but if you keep assuming bad faith that's clearly impossible. If I had to guess, I will probably agree with the results and methods of the study, so that if you want to call that "employing the concept of rape culture to fight rape" then we are in agreement that it works. But that's not how I see the concept of rape culture employed to fight rape (which goes back to Rationalzombie94's question at the beginning of the thread). Thinker(unlicensed) 19:37, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * At least you've pared it down, shit. Go ahead, how do you see the concept of rape culture employed, versus how would you like to see the concept of rape culture employed, if not effective enough already in combatting the number of rapes?   The floor is yours.  May we give the floor to Thinker here? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:01, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

"Go ahead, how do you see the concept of rape culture employed..."
 * This goes back to my first post. I saw the concept of rape culture taught as: "among men there exists a culture that celebrate rape, they are all culprit of perpetuating it and the only effective way to fight rape is a re-education program applied to all men. No action whatsoever should be taken by women, and who dare suggesting so is blaming the victims." Also, rape of men (by women or other men) is never discussed (which goes back to Rationalzombie94's post). I witnessed this in two specific campaign in my city one of which had a two hours lecture consisted entirely of trying to conflate with rape things like making a compliment to a woman in workplace or some Benny Hill's style movies, and giving no actual advice to women about what to do in case of sexual abuse.

"how would you like to see the concept of rape culture employed"
 * The concept of "rape culture" is not the answer to fight rape and sexual abuse. There are many other ways that I believe to be effective, here just some that come to my mind: simplifying the reporting of sexual abuse to the police, and educating the population about the importance of reporting, especially fighting the shame associated to being abused; educating young people about the dangers of certain situations (like being in isolate places or drinking too much); educating people about exactly what to do in case of rape (like not washing themselves and contacting authorities as soon as possible) to avoid perpetrators to escape justice. Thinker(unlicensed) 16:32, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sure that is what you saw. But the idea of rape culture mostly involves male-centric sexual conquest.  Like how the "toxic masculinity" concept isn't against masculinity, it's against ideas like to be masculine is to be invulnerable or unfeeling.  Or how Black Lives Matter should have been called "Cops keep killing black people and not facing consequences for it."  Now, I will give you the Gol Sarnitt seal of approval to clean up that drunk post via one million edits before I really respond to it, because teaching women better about (edit for clarity) protecting themselves or what to do when they get raped is a piss-poor solution to the problem of rape.  It is potentially part of the solution, yes, and it is a good endeavor to be part of the solution, but fuck you, man.  Do the edit.  Edit the shit out of that post, you don't have to be right the first time.Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:14, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "Now, I will give you the Gol Sarnitt seal of approval to clean up that drunk post via one million edits before I really respond to it"
 * That doesn't make any sense. You asked me some questions and I have responded. Even if a change my mind, which is not, I'm not going to retroactive edit my post.
 * "because teaching women better about (edit for clarity) protecting themselves or what to do when they get raped is a piss-poor solution to the problem of rape."
 * First, that's not the only thing I proposed ("simplifying the reporting of sexual abuse to the police, and educating the population about the importance of reporting, especially fighting the shame associated to being abused; educating young people about the dangers of certain situations (like being in isolate places or drinking too much); educating people about exactly what to do in case of rape (like not washing themselves and contacting authorities as soon as possible) to avoid perpetrators to escape justice.") you ignored everything else I said. Second, if you think it is "piss-poor" you should argue why. Otherwise I could say that yours is just a "piss-poor" reply and the conversation is stuck.
 * "It is potentially part of the solution, yes,"
 * Then tell me what else you think it should be done. Thinker(unlicensed) 07:40, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I think, during real sex education, educating everyone that enthusiastic consent as the proper/most rewarding way to have sex for both parties should be top billing. And it should be stressed that if you are not sure if you or any partner wants to perform the act, it is not enthusiastic consent. I think this should be taught to schoolchildren from their first sex-ed lesson, when they are like 3rd graders or whatever getting separated into rooms to learn about their anatomy.  It should never be dropped from the lesson plan.  I think when learning about genitalia for the first time, it is time to talk about the basics of consent.  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:00, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Secondly, I think these same sex-ed classes further down the line that explain STDs and push the difficulties of parenthood should make the point that pornography is fiction. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:05, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thirdly, to deal with rape culture today, we prosecute, shame, and make public disavowals of rapes and lenient rulings over rape cases. None of my solutions will have a 100% success rate.  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:26, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "I think, during real sex education, educating everyone that enthusiastic consent as the proper/most rewarding way to have sex..."
 * I don't disagree with doing that, and in fact I'm a supporter of sex education. What I find extremely naive is your believe that sex education is the method against rape, while what I proposed is "piss-poor". It's not that most of the rapist perpetrate their crime because they never learned in school that sex needs consent... they just don't care!
 * "I think these same sex-ed classes further down the line that explain STDs..."
 * OK, but that's not about rape.
 * "Thirdly, to deal with rape culture today, we prosecute, shame, and make public disavowals of rapes and lenient rulings over rape cases."
 * It's happening already... Thinker(unlicensed) 08:31, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, it's happening already, my point is I support that endeavor. Also, the point about consent means that it should be taught from the earliest stage throughout every stage.  I'm not an educator, I don't know what or which, from where the exact point to change the conversation from consent to enthusiastic consent belongs, but I think consent belongs in the reproductive anatomy education.  I have a pet peeve with pornographic narratives, I'm not worried about admitting it.  Pornography is more available than sex ed to the public.  I don't think it's a dumb idea to work that into course material, while also continuously informing teens about consent, like I said in my first point. Education about consent was not intended to be something that just sat on my first point, it's important to all of my points.  Sorry if I implied it ineffectively, I meant "First point, add consent education to everything, second point, add consent education, third point, add consent education"  Hopefully, you have caught up by now.
 * But your point that rapists just don't care concedes to your opinion that all criminals fully understand that they are committing crimes, and aren't even worth educating. I said my solutions aren't 100% effective, didn't I?  If your opinion is rapists-gonna-rape and there's no way to combat the literal 1,2,3,4 number count of rapists down to a lower number than what it could be, then yeah, why even ask me? Lower rape numbers aren't your goalposts.  But they are mine.  I think lowering the number of people who don't understand what rape is would be the quickest solution to spotting the people who "just don't care". What are your goalposts, what solution are you actually asking me to propose?  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 06:55, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "the point about consent means that it should be taught from the earliest stage throughout every stage. [...] Hopefully, you have caught up by now."
 * I already said I support sex education. Why do you have to spent one paragraph to repeat a point I agree with like I don't?
 * "If your opinion is rapists-gonna-rape and there's no way to combat the literal 1,2,3,4 number count of rapists down [...] Lower rape numbers aren't your goalposts."
 * Straw man: After your request I proposed ways of fighting rape, so telling me that I believe there's no way or I don't care it's preposterous.
 * "what solution are you actually asking me to propose?"
 * I'm not asking you to propose anything. I did my proposals, you criticized that, you did yours, I criticized yours. I'm not going to reply further, since your not making any actual point. Thinker(unlicensed) 08:03, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm a little disappointed, I was making a pretty explicit explanation about what to do about solving "rape culture" that you asked for qualifiers for, but I think I understand, I asked you your opinion in the first place. And hey, I'm sorry for strawmanning you, I recognize that you think girls should protect themselves from rape better than they already do.  I wish you good luck, since you clearly don't need anything else.  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 08:27, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yo, secondly, you also suggested girls do a better job at all the steps of reporting after a rape, can't believe I skipped that, it was totally on my list. I fully recognize that you think girls should do a better job of protecting themselves from rape, and a better job at dealing with being a victim of rape. I'm sorry that I left part of your solution out of my argument. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:15, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

*waves shoehorn*
OH man, College Buddies is the best. I've read it five times over and I gotta say, it's better than ANYTHING that Marvel or DC could vomit out. Stanlee (talk) 00:43, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * — Dr. Ox   quack specialist  01:55, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

The Word of God
Hello, friends. Today I am here to talk (text?) to you about the Word of God.

Romans 8:38—39 says: "... neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord." (KJV)

Do you know how to accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour? Do you know why you supposedly should? If you're thinking something along the lines of "Why the fuck would I want to worship a megalo-tyrant?", then you likely see the world for the way it is, but incorrectly attribute what you see to the malevolence of a higher power, rather than the sin of humanity. Please talk to me! <3 <3

What in the name of holy shit? There's no such thing as black or white, only shades of green. That is one of the most intelligent things anyone has ever said on RationalWiki. I commend you. You are a man woman hu man person of culture. The root of all evil; cheatcodes can't be wrong.

22:47, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Morality is a lot more complex than traditional good and evil dichotomies, aka the black and white spectrum, even grey doesn't do it justice. The world in general is a lot more complex than what people typically think of it as. — Dr. Ox   quack specialist  22:57, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thoughtcrime - what about those of us who support different Deities/are destined for different heavens?
 * There are worse moralities than the ideas of Desiderata (whatever your belief system). Anna Livia (talk) 23:12, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * What about the hundreds of gods that people followed before Christianity? Are they all fucked because "the word" didn't exist then? sounds like a pretty shitty god. -RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:20, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * To respond to the verse, if death or life or angels are ineffectual and not to be trusted parameters, why have a system that is based on messages from angels about death or life? Why trust the people who tell you things?  Why trust your own observations?  I get that the message here is anti-establishment and anti-math, but it's also against the text.  Which leads it into a self-sealing argument against the idea of Jesus as divine.  The conclusion is that God is now Jesus, screw all these old stories and new measurments, Jesus is the living God, and you aren't supposed to trust the leaders to tell you about what you should believe.  Jesus loves you, and he is simultaneously a living and dead God?  But, hey, don't try to measure that on the things you see or hear, and don't trust anyone who says they know shit about shit.
 * I'm sorry, but I call cult on this verse. I know I've mentioned this on the Saloon before, but the invisible gardener argument is relevant here.  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 01:13, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * not the word of god 'cos it is supposedly the word of Paul to the Romans, and he never even met "the son of god" so this isn't even "gospel"!! Aloysius the Gaul 01:43, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "Do you know how to accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour?" Supposedly I just say a magic chant, then I can rape and murder people without consequence! "Do you know why you supposedly should?" Because you an your archaic compilation of fables demand that sane people drink your koolaid. "Why the fuck would I want to worship a megalo-tyrant?', then you likely see the world for the way it is, but incorrectly attribute what you see to the malevolence of a higher power, rather than the sin of humanity" According to you and your book, God rules all, God controls all. Thus it logically follows that any ill is his fault. In conclusion, Conversion attempt #568 is a failure. I still have yet to see any evidence of this "God" person, and any evidence as to why I should care about his opinions. NEXT MORON PLEASE!!!!!  03:57, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "Do you know how to accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour?"
 * Yes, I do. Thinker(unlicensed) 08:52, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I worship a different god. Your Jesus has no hold over me. 11:06, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * We all know how to accept JC as our L&S - but we have also read the words of various other Deities, and you are number (xxx) in the queue. Your input is valuable to us.
 * At the end of the current universe the various deities play a complex version of this game, and get to divide up the next universe according to the results. Anna Livia (talk) 17:34, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh please, we all know Ragnarok will be the end of the universe. — Dr. Ox   quack specialist  17:45, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Deity Oranges and Lemons is compatible with Ragnorak.
 * The End of the Universe Games also includes 'attempting to lift the universe.' Anna Livia (talk) 18:12, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree. The black/white dichotomy is a result of generalisations, which people are wont to make to try to keep track of an infinitly complex world.

If you believe in a different diety, then that deity's "heaven" is where you will go when you kick the bucket, at least in your own mind, which is all that matters really.

Unfortunately, yes. Monotheism says that there can only be one true God. (But which one?!?!, you ask.)

Dude.

I'm not proselytising, damn. Calm the fuck down. Supposedly I just say a magic chant, then I can rape and murder people without consequence! It's not about what you say, it's about what you believe. If don't believe in God, the "magic chant" would have no meaning. If you do believe in God, you wouldn't be raping and murdering people, now would you? Real Christians are filled with love, not hate.

Because you an your archaic compilation of fables demand that sane people drink your koolaid. No, it's because of our sinful nature.

''Accordingto you and your book, God rules all, God controls all. Thus it logically follows that any ill is his fault.'' Two words: Free Will. Now don't blame God for free will, blame humans for relishing in abusing it.

I still have yet to see any evidence of this "God" person ... Waiting for evidence? Me too.

... and any evidence as to why I should care about his opinions. I agree that it must be hard to care about the opinions of something you don't believe exists.

STFU UT.

That's fine. As long as you worship something other than you're own flesh. (Or do you?)

Thank you all. 00:58, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd say you're welcome, but unfortunately, I, don't think we're done here. It's not ideal for me either. There's a lot to unpack, none of it is great. But I need a starting point, so I'm going to pick one, if that's ok with you.  I'd like you to define "worship."  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 06:15, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Personally I only worship Kentucky Bourbon. -RipCityLiberal (talk) 15:38, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I worship the God Emperor_of_Mankind. Ollanius pius (talk) 17:16, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "It's not about what you say, it's about what you believe. If don't believe in God, the "magic chant" would have no meaning. If you do believe in God, you wouldn't be raping and murdering people, now would you? Real Christians are filled with love, not hate." Bullshit. Your attempt to use no true Scotsman to escape from the baggage Christianity carries is both obvious and pathetic.
 * "No, it's because of our sinful nature." "Sin" is an arbitrary set of social taboos which according to the Bible does not include, rape, murder (of non-Israelites) ,genocide (of non-Israelites), child brides, slavery, and most galling of all God's own actions. I think I'll stick with a moral system that at least covers the basics of human decency, rather than "God = good, therefore anything God says = good".
 * "Two words: Free Will. Now don't blame God for free will, blame humans for relishing in abusing it." Two words: Bull shit. According to both the Bible and Christian doctrine, God knows everything (except when he doesn't) and can do anything (except when he can't). Thus any action is known beforehand,and any consequence preventable. The failure to prevent those consequences can be understood two ways, either God doesn't care or God doesn't exist.
 * "Waiting for evidence? Me too." Then why does the Bible matter? Why does any of it matter? If you have no evidence for a claim, why believe it?
 * "I agree that it must be hard to care about the opinions of something you don't believe exists." I suppose you think you're being clever here, however, let's say God did exist. Let's suppose that he voiced his opinion loud and clear. So what? Why should I care? How are God's opinions (and they are opinions) any different than those of Donald Trump, or Barrack Obama, or my next door neighbor, or my own? I will give you the entire thing on a silver platter, footnote mythology (the devil's fall from grace appears nowhere in the Bible, and the Lucifer story happens after the Eden story. Further the idea that the serpent in the Eden story being Satan is tenuously drawn from a brief sentence in Revelations, which was written long after the Eden story.) included, and it wouldn't matter one iota. The reason is simple, just because someone (supposedly) has power does not mean we should obey them, and further, we should never obey them blindly and without question, as the Bible demands.
 * "I'm not proselytising, damn. Calm the fuck down." Don't lie, or at least don't lie so obviously. Further, you mistake my critique for anger. The truth of the matter is this I'm so used to the interchangeable arguments for Christianity, the repetitive drivel, the unchanging "zingers" cribbed from historical figures who actually tried, that I'm apathetic to attempts at conversion at this point, excluding attempts to justify murder, rape, slavery, etc. 19:39, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Prepare yourself for a lot of reading.

''"Sin" is an arbitrary set of social taboos which according to the Bible does not include, rape, murder (of non-Israelites), genocide (of non-Israelites), child brides, slavery, and most galling of all God's own actions. I think I'll stick with a moral system that at least covers the basics of human decency, rather than "God = good, therefore anything God says = good".''

Let us, for the sake of argument, define sin as violating so: "And you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength. This is the first commandment. And the second, like it, is this: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. There is no commandment greater than these." (Mark 12:30-31) If all follow these commandments, then the world must be a very peaceful place. It is the perfect moral system.

''Bullshit. Your attempt to use no true Scotsman to escape from the baggage Christianity carries is both obvious and pathetic.''

Just because you don't like, doesn't make it not so. The gift of everlasting life is not one that can't be taken away, if you fall from the Lord's Grace. Your original point is therefore moot.

''Two words: Bull shit. According to both the Bible and Christian doctrine, God knows everything (except when he doesn't) and can do anything (except when he can't). Thus any action is known beforehand,and any consequence preventable. The failure to prevent those consequences can be understood two ways, either God doesn't care or God doesn't exist.''

I will admit that this is a very difficult point to argue. It is one of the main reasons Christians become athiests. However, we cannot say that because we are subjected to evil, God does not care for us (Mysterious ways and all). It is simply the broken world we live in. It is a consolation that Christians have a gift waiting for them in the afterlife that far outweighs any worldy pain. I guess you win this point.

''Then why does the Bible matter? Why does any of it matter? If you have no evidence for a claim, why believe it?''

Let me ask you a question. Why do you think people want to believe in the existence of God? (Or a god.) I have heard some describe being Saved as and incredibly freeing experience. They only knew how much weight they had on their shoulders when they set it down before a higher power. They describe their life coming into clarity, of being freed from anxiety and stress. Their life hasn't magically been altered, it is still the same. Their outlook has changed. For how can you not laugh at the petty things in life when you believe a God is watching over you? A God that cares about you personally, and wants to see you succeed? Is this such a bad thing?

In Nineteen-eighty Four by George Orwell (the Second Gospel), O'Brien says to Winston Smith:

"We control matter because we control the mind. Reality is inside the skull. [...] There is nothing that we could not do. Invisibility, levitation — anything. I could float off this floor like a soap bubble if I wish to. [...] You must get rid of those nineteenth-century ideas about the laws of Nature. We make the laws of Nature."

The film puts it a bit more bluntly:

"If you believe I float, then I float."

It doesn't matter if something is or is not real and factual. All that matters is what you believe. And if what you believe is beneficial to yourself and others, all the better. (A part of you is probably screaming right now.) Personally, I would rather we "worshipped" Socialism, Collectivism, Utilitarianism, and Humanitarianism. But Christianity ain't so bad.

''I suppose you think you're being clever here, however, let's say God did exist. Let's suppose that he voiced his opinion loud and clear. So what? Why should I care? How are God's opinions (and they are opinions) any different than those of Donald Trump, or Barrack Obama, or my next door neighbor, or my own?''

I thought I was being very clever ;) You suffer from an outside perspective. If you believe in the existence of God, how can you not value His opinion? You really have to believe to understand.

The reason is simple, just because someone (supposedly) has power does not mean we should obey them, and further, we should never obey them blindly and without question, as the Bible demands.

I agree. We should not obey the principles of caring for our fellow man. It is obviously a nefarious plot in disguise. (See? I'm being clever again.)

Don't lie, or at least don't lie so obviously.

No, seriously, I'm not proselytising. I'm playing devil's advocate (or God's, as it happens to be. Not enough Christian viewpoints being expressed here, IMO). I also thought it would be fun to trigger some god haters.

Further, you mistake my critique for anger.

True. Mostly due to this: "NEXT MORON PLEASE!!!!!" That looks like screaming (just me?).

Overall, it looks like I have undermined my own position, and have lost the debate (do Christians ever win?). I'm neither a Biblical literalist nor inerrantist, so I couldn't in good conscience feed you drivel I myself don't believe.

Worship is basically someone being so incredibly happy that God sent Jesus Christ to die for them on the Cross that they want to thank Him over and over and over and over again. (Not a fan, TBH)

Sure, I go to Church every Sunday. But it's mostly to hear the sermons, which I find very encouraging and intellectually stimulating (can you believe it?).

Please excuse me, I need to take a shit.

23:24, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, so you're trolling, in that case shut up. Seriously, the reason why the "pro-God" side doesn't come up here isn't because we suppress it, but A) because of the user demographics of this website, and B) because Christian apologetics suck rancid donkey balls. Seriously, go read through them, almost all of them have been refuted over a thousand times by now, yet Christian apologists keep parading them out as if they were anything more than empty words. It's pathetic. Even more pathetic is the fact that most of them are cribbed off theologians who died hundreds of years ago, and who lacked knowledge modern scientists now possess. In short, you may find inspiration in the Bible, but that is in spite of it's contents (God good, life sucks, afterlife rules, but no suicide cause God says so) rather than because of it.
 * (I simply couldn't resist this one) "Let me ask you a question. Why do you think people want to believe in the existence of God? (Or a god.) I have heard some describe being Saved as and incredibly freeing experience. They only knew how much weight they had on their shoulders when they set it down before a higher power. They describe their life coming into clarity, of being freed from anxiety and stress. Their life hasn't magically been altered, it is still the same. Their outlook has changed. For how can you not laugh at the petty things in life when you believe a God is watching over you? A God that cares about you personally, and wants to see you succeed? Is this such a bad thing?" Yes, believing in magical Big Brother is a bad thing. It's a mental handicap, like mental retardation. It is the celebration of stupidity, of the Tabula Rasa, of ignorance. It is throwing responsibility away in favor of a delusion, and when someone threatens the delusion by pointing out that "hey, life sucks but we should accept that and work through it together they get pissy and start with how humans are bad, humans are tainted, only God matters. Guess what? Unless your a fictional character or a raving psychopath, no, God doesn't matter. "God" was the ideal state a bunch of primitives who faced death around almost every corner could dream up, and he is obsolete. We don't need the imaginary friend anymore, we need real solutions to real problems, not rose tinted glasses based off a shitty compilation of fables. That's what the Bible is, a compilation of fables no different than the Odessy, the Argonautica, One Thousand and One Arbaian Nights, etc. What it is not, and I grow tired of explaining this, is a decent source of morality, or truth, or anything other than idle amusment. 00:09, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "Worship is basically someone being so incredibly happy that God sent Jesus Christ to die for them on the Cross that they want to thank Him over and over and over and over again. (Not a fan, TBH)" I don't know what your "not a fan" thing means, but here we go anyway.  Is it concerning to you that you are only defining the word "worship" locally, while also casting it around? If somebody HAS to worship something, quoting you here "that's fine. As long as you worship something other than you're own flesh. (Or do you?)" So worship means what?  Being endlessly thankful of something?  Endlessly devoted to something?  I understand that you worship by loving Christ and feeling the love of Christ, but that's not my question.  I'm glad to get a glimpse of how "worship" works for you, but what do you think "worship" should mean to everybody? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:35, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

America & Capital Punishment
Because this has re-entered the news, I interested in where we go from here for capital punishment. John Oliver broke this down pretty well addressing that lethal injection really doesn't have scientific or medical basis as well as the cocktail not exactly being humane. Though I mention capital punishment in my platform proposal, including taking the right to kill away from states, I did not include a more radical proposal: reintroducing the guillotine. Hear me out here, discussions about who gets executed, how they were put in those situations and questions about the prison industrial complex. But one of the major motivations of the French Revolution, was equality, including equality about how people were executed. The guillotine created an efficient, lethal solution that all people would be subject to. Of course there might be some concerns about a botched beheading, but most of these included swords and axes, nothing quite like a device designed strictly for this purpose. I'm sure that private companies would have no problem making an industrial scale guillotine. Thoughts? -RipCityLiberal (talk) 17:33, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The guillotine is cruel and brutal. If the goal is more humane execution, inert gas is clearly the way to go. The victim feels a little loopy, but not in an unpleasant way, more like being drunk, then they fall asleep, then they die. People accidentally kill themselves with inert gas all the time, without noticing that anything has gone wrong until they flop over unconscious on the aircraft controls. Which of course, is all beside the point that execution is inherently cruel and the practice ought to be eliminated altogether. Hannasanarion (talk) 17:43, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Firing squads are more humane than this shit. — Dr. Ox   quack specialist  17:47, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * its good that you are all concerned about the most humane way to murder people. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:58, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Firing squads miss and create mental strain on the shooters. Inert gas could have the same struggle in acquiring as drug cocktail. Governments have the right to kill people. Until that changes we need to have an honest discussion about effective ways to use that right, limiting cruelty and pain. -RipCityLiberal (talk) 18:03, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * RCL - justify your statement that governments have the right to kill people. The UK abolished the death penalty in 1965 (IOM 'technically' much later) and has far fewer mass murders than the US. Anna Livia (talk) 18:06, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I think your statement has several different qualifiers in it, so let me break it down as I believe your points are addressing. As for governments, you seem to be excluding autocracies, theocracies, monarchies, dictatorships and kleptocracies, which are all "governments" that certainly have the right to kill people. But by mentioning the UK, the qualifier seems to be constitutional monarchies or democratic-republics, which I will grant you is my frame of reference as well. For that I would say besides having the historic right to kill it's citizens, they also have the power to declare war, and war tends to kill people. Your next qualifier seems to address a common refrain from capital punishment advocates that it discourages "mass murders". To that my response is: The UK has a history of sanctioned mass murder abroad, and the death penalty is a deterrent, but a weak one. I agree that homicide is much higher in the US despite having the death penalty, but this is less because people don't fear capital punishment, but because they have easy access to firearms, a strong history of institutional racism, a weak educational system (specifically creating opportunities to leave poverty, or allowing people to create a humanist ideology), a criminal justice system that focuses on punishment over reform, a poor mental health infrastructure, and of course an uneven enforcement of capital punishment.
 * Basically, governments have always had the right to kill people, and the fact the US has a higher homicide rate has less to do with capital punishment being a weak deterrent and more to do with guns, racism and bad government.- RipCityLiberal (talk) 18:30, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * no death penalty in eu either. an honest discussion would be the why have one in the first placeAMassiveGay (talk) 18:20, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Because some people are vengeful, having lost sight of justice. — Dr. Ox   quack specialist  18:31, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Execution should be saved only for the people who decide they have the right to rule over others then betray that trust: cops, politicians, judges, all of them should be open to execution should they be sufficiently corrupt or murderous. For everyone else, the social contract is a necessarily one sided affair and should be given punishments that are centered around reform and prevention.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:25, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * To be fair this is a solid argument against capital punishment, but not addressing, how we should do it. -RipCityLiberal (talk) 18:33, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * itx irrelevant how it should be done when it shouldnt be done at all. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:41, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * And tbh the traditional way to execute politicians is pitchfork and torches plus imagination. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:51, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Since humans have developed society, capital punishment has been included. Consistently in the US, the will of the people has overruled states attempting to end it (Oregon and California had this happen). Lethal injection doesn't work. The reasoning behind using it amounts to pseudoscience, a mission this wiki seeks address. I personally don't like capital punishment, especially as it is used more frequently on African-Americans in usually unfair trials. However it is a deterrent, though a weak one, and while we work on improving society to rely on capital punishment less, we need to find a method that satisfies those who still support it. -RipCityLiberal (talk) 18:54, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * no you do not and doing so makes it more unlikely they ever not support it. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:00, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * in fact the current difficulty in finding suitable drugs for lethal injection should be used to encourage states to abandon the death penalty. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:03, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * are you asking about the less painful way to perform capital punishment? (regardless if capital punishment is right or wrong)
 * In such a case, it seems that Hannasanarion's proposal makes sense. Thinker(unlicensed) 19:06, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * ......lol. Also the nitrogen thing could get tricky, apparently someone set up a brewery and was basically "this will be used for beer, and maybe death".-RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:15, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm also an unabashed supporter of the death penalty, although I think it should be reserved for mass shooters, terrorists, and the like. Some people just can't be reformed. Some people need to die. The nitrogen idea is the one I like best, but I still don't have anything against the good ol' firing squad. Some of the guns have blanks, so the shooters could choose to believe they didn't kill anyone. 20:47, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * There isn't anything that I can find connecting firing squads to PTSD, but again it seems rather inefficient and involves more humans than necessary. Quick blade, behead person, done. -RipCityLiberal (talk) 20:59, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Death penalty is just revenge fantasy and is barbaric and has no place in civilized society. Period. 23:15, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Is revenge immoral? Is all death barbaric? Those are different questions. Right now capital punishment is part of civilized society, how do we improve it, regardless if we plan to eventually eradicate he practice.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:59, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * In the case of death penalty, revenge is immoral, death is barbaric, and capital punishment is an archaic relic of barbaric practices that should be purged for a better functioning society. 00:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * @duce - cant be reformed? certainly not if they are executed. i bet mass shooters can be, should we allow them. terrorists too. if they can't, well, we have prisons for that, were they are no longer a threat.
 * @ripcity - you dont improve murder, you stop it. 132 countries of the world manage not to execute its citizens.
 * its not like us justice hasnt huge issues, considering the racial, ethnic, and class bias of the justice system, how can you even begin to consider a death penalty? Maybe that should be looked first. or the sheer number of people the us incarcerates? or that literal slavery is alive and well in for profit prisons? and lets not get started on the wrongfully convicted. maybe people should make more of effort to deal with all that rather than considering the best way to murder people like it was maths problem.
 * there is no way of spinning savage barbarity as efficiency or humane and it is no picnc for all those involved in carrying the task either - wardens and guards alike.
 * a marker of a just society is how it treats the worst of its citizens. any society that murders them has fundamentally failed.
 * AMassiveGay (talk) 00:45, 16 May 2019 (UTC) I'm pretty conservative on most issues, but this is one that I agree with RipCity and you 100%. The death penalty is unjust. It has major problems like it can never be reversed, and a massive race disparity. Commie Lib (talk) 01:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with this, Tabula's point. My hard line problem with "the death penalty" explicitly is the potential failure rate.  If the death penalty executes a single person who is innocent of a crime they have been convicted for, it is fully contradictory to its own point.  It becomes state sanctioned murder if an innocent person is executed via any state's judicial means.  Even if a life sentence takes on that failure rate, it's not the same as an execution. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 01:40, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll leave this here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrongful_execution https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-and-death-penalty. Commie Lib (talk) 02:27, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * There is also the problem that multiple times methods of execution said to be "humane" are botched leading to terrible pain or torture. Commie Lib (talk) 02:33, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * There's a massive income disparity. The rich never get executed. 03:04, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Modern day aristocrats. Eat the rich indeed. — Dr. Ox   quack specialist  04:39, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * We were still hanging people in South Africa up until 1994, I think. Very humane. Just a little pop in the neck and it's all over (if you're lucky). I'm pro-death penalty. I think rapists and murdurers should be executed dispassionately. It's logical. 11:23, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That's not logical. That's just naive revenge fantasy. 19:37, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Hanging is not humane at all. It's been improved, but it's still definitely open to failure that is essentially strangulation. Both of you are making points on class (to a lesser extent & ) which I most certainly agree with. The criminal justice system is designed benefit the wealthy, because they can afford to higher people to exploit the system (or they may have written it with the explicit purpose to be exploited, or they just say fuck it and corrupt their way out of it), and especially in America, those of less means tend to be P.O.C and other underrepresented groups. But this problem pervades the ENTIRETY of the criminal justice system. It was written by wealthy white men. The foundation of law is explicitly racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic and misogynist. But that is the system we have, and until we are prepared to fundamentally change to a new system, how do we minimize suffering? I don't feel like this is as big a sin as many of you are acting like it is.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 18:36, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I laugh at you guys arguing over "humane" ways to kill people. And I mean that as a general statement. It's quite literally stripping away humanity and turning people into bodies, nothing humane about that. Also, abolishing the death penalty would be a helpful step toward enacting step toward fair and civilized legal systems. This doesn't require a system change does it? 19:37, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * For once we agree. Killing people at all is not justice, it's vengeance. That barbaric punishment has no place in a functional society. Commie Lib (talk) 22:04, 16 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The failure rate of hanging is not as high as you think. In real life, they fall and they die, quick quick. There is a very off chance that their spinal cord doesn't snap, in which case, shit. Bad luck.


 * Don't be ridiculous, my china. There is a reason I said "dispassionately". I derive no satisfaction from the execution of criminals. To put it coldly, it is simply "housekeeping". In the same vein that we would put down a rabid dog, so too must we dispose of undesirables in our society. It is undeniably a terrible, horrific thing. But it is our duty to protect our society. In SA, most criminals are repeat-offenders, so it would be a hell of a lot less problematic to just "off them". Can you form a reasoned argument and explain your position?  23:54, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Well for the sake of argument let's say I'm fine with executing people who are guilty of terrible crimes (I'm not). What would you do about the accidental execution of innocent people? That's my main problem with the death penalty. It's a no take backs solution. Commie Lib (talk) 00:06, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Deterrence doesn't work and I find it very problematic to dehumanize criminals and compare them to rabid dogs. Especially when you consider all the biases forming inside people's heads that lead to the death penalty. If you want to neutralize them, how is life in prison not effective? Is it worth the psychological toll of the executioners? Is it worth the psychological toll of the executed's family? Is it worth the toll and resource sink of death-row and the grueling appeals processes? Is it worth to ignore the obvious racial, economic, and sex (men are more likely to get executed) prejudices that come with capital punishment? 23:38, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I feel like I was on decent moral ground and then this fuck gets in the conversation. "...shit. Bad luck." is not an excuse for creating unnecessary human suffering. By lowering the status of humans to animals, you have lost the moral argument. -RipCityLiberal (talk) 16:44, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, so you're attempting supervillain status, I can respect that. But what does it matter saying execution methods are worth the trouble if sentences of executions can be judicially handed down to people innocent of the crimes for which they have been convicted?  Quick, quick, bad luck, is it easy enough to call bad luck as it is to see a person hanged for a crime that said person did not commit? I don't care if you think "most" executions are justified.  If you want to justify the death penalty, you have to justify every single execution or admit that you support executing a percent of innocent people greater than 0% in order to execute the people who deserve to be executed.  If you're not even careful about the means to which you want this punishment carried out, your view is doubly abhorrent.  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:06, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism
Why exactly do high school aged girls (and boys for that matter) enjoy vandalizing wikis so much? Like I saw someone wrote "my puss" on an article at Wikipedia, and whois on the IP showed it belonged to a high school. I would expect that more out of junior high instead of senior high.2607:FB90:90E3:2EAF:0:F:EDC1:2D01 (talk) 21:11, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Teens are dumb (says the guy who turned 21 not even a month ago). 21:15, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I can safely say adults are also dumb. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:17, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Gen Z is a breakout version of internet culture, which means it's cool to be cooler than hangups. Teens always like to be cool.  I was hiking with a friend of mine and he had a thing to say about some of the people we used to run around with, which was if you're 30 and still being cool in the way you were cool at 20, something is up.  I disagreed, because I'm still as cool as I was 10 years ago, and he was like nah, point is not about you.  I disagree...  I'm cool... Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:12, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Wiki vandalism is just the modern equivalent of writing on walls. It's generally nothing to get too worked up about. And, yeah, it probably will slowly die out as the cool kids gradually move on to doing something else. Spud (talk) 04:18, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Nah, man, wiki vandalism has been cool ever since wikis first got popular over a decade ago. I was in middle school then and everybody was bragging about the pages they vandalized, saying how fun it is to mess up stuff on the internet. Hannasanarion (talk) 11:35, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I thought wiki vandalism was going the way of facebook. Something for the oldies.Hubert (talk) 19:09, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * There will always be (at least for the other wiki) the time in a young kid's life where they see "Oh wow, I can change this encyclopedia everyone uses?" which has an appealing sense of power. The faster that moment passes, the better off we'll all be.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:28, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The neighborhood kid wanted for vandalizing RationalWiki. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:34, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Oddly enough, wiki vandalism isn't just something "kids" do. I've seen the same immaturity come from IP addresses belonging to the Federal Communications Commission and the United States Department of Homeland Security, for example, and I mean the same flavor of "so and so is cute," "department xyz throws the best parties," or "so and so has a big dick" that school kids write on Wikipedia. I thought the FCC was the most ironic because they are the agency that tells tv and radio stations not to be naughty on the air. 71.3.195.138 (talk) 17:12, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

We have mikemikev and his socks doing that over here and he's definitely over 18. Tinribmancer (talk) 16:24, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

The only actual difference between TERF's and MRA's
That difference is the genitalia. They are basically the same thing. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:40, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Is it? I feel that the real difference is that TERFs are a toxic offshoot of feminism coopting female empowerment to stygmatize some of the most vulnerable populations while MRAs are... Hm. Well then. Point well taken. 206.53.88.85 (talk) 04:20, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * One major similarity is that both stigmatize men who have issues they need to talk about such as Depression. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 20:35, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. MRA's explicitly express contempt against all women. YOUR SO CALLED " TERF " ONLY HAS A PROBLEM WITH DICKS WHO PRETEND TO BE WOMEN. (user talk : ANON )
 * You seem to forget that, as the other anon highlighted, they're an offshoot of Feminism. Y'know, the movement that argues that there is an imbalance in power skewed unfairly toward men? 03:28, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Alabama continues being the most idiotic state in the nation
They almost elected a pedophile Constitution hater and now they are passing draconian awful pro-birth abortion laws. Large piece of shit land, why don't you secede from the Union? 03:28, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't encourage them. People say that about Texas and I get worried that we'll actually secede, then things will really get bad... 03:53, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Because family does not let family secede from the union. Especially when they support college football, what are you, a monster?  We do not give up on our own, they still watch every single commercial during every imaginable sport season.  I am so flustered, I repeat.  We do not give up on our own successful...  College.  Sports.  Franchises, I mean combine, I mean academic house of worship!  I'm choking up, I can't even talk to you right now, how dare you?  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:06, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * What's the law about anchoring some kind of in the Gulf of Mexico and offering free shuttle boats on the pretense it's a floating casino? There's probably a joke about Mobile, Alabama in there somewhere. --Annanoon (talk) 09:48, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Aside from Neal Young becoming relevant again, there will probably be women's marches and a spate of lawsuits this summer. Millennium Scallion (talk) 15:39, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * A fun fact, about 10% of women who get abortions regret it in an interview 10 years later, about 80% of women who consider abortions and couldn't get them due to financial or legal reasons regret not getting one 10 years later. Happy households those kids must live in, huh?  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:42, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The same legislatorss are 99% likely anti-gay adoptions/implantation/fostering, and you have to be really damn sure you want a kid as a lesbian or gay male couple. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 16:24, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * They also are doing nothing to dispel the notion that they love fetuses, but hate children (like defunding SNAP, cutting food stamps, targeting education) and that Alabama is a dumbass state with a spawn colony of moronic fils de putes. 18:18, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * As far as "pro-life"ers are concerned, life begins at conception and ends at birth. Honestly, there's a mean little part of me that wishes we could put the South under martial law and do Reconstruction properly this time. 18:22, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * They aren't "pro-life" as much as they are "hate other people having sex". Because if you wanted to lower the number of abortions to basically zero, you'd offer free birth control, enhance sex education to be more sex positive and you would favor more fair distribution of wealth. People get abortions frequently because they: Can't afford to get medical treatment during pregnancy, can't afford to miss work during/after pregnancy, can't afford to give birth (It's like more than $1,000), or can't afford to raise the child. If they overturn Roe, I'll drive to places where it's illegal near me and drive them to PDX to get it done. -RipCityLiberal (talk) 18:44, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The fact that the doctors that act outside of this law would face longer prison sentences than the rapists is worth, maybe, just a quick pause. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:32, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I wonder what about natural abortions. Someone must be held responsible of them. That said, the worst is the apparent lack of state-funded support to help those women who cannot afford to raise a children (and do not start with the adoption BS). Hell, right or far right parties here have promised laws to help women in that regard, for example paying part of the mortgage.
 * That is less of caring for life and more of both control, and having more sheeps. Hypocrites. Panzerfaust (talk) 07:42, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Pennyroyal, the natural choice. (This is sarcasm to anybody skimming). Gol Sarnitt (talk) 01:48, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * maybe this is all a conspiracy from coat hanger manufacturers? more back street abortions, more profit. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:19, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

The moment I've feared
I switched from cigarettes to vaping about a month ago. I know it's better for me, and I'm off cigarettes, but I was always worried about making the switch. Partly because I don't see anything lame about walking to the gas station to buy a pack of reds, or stepping outside to rip a cig, but also partly because I didn't ever want to be the guy who thought to himself "Oh crap, my zombie crackle razzleberry moon juice is almost out! How will I blow the fat clouds!?!" But here I am, out of juice. I now have to go back to the store I bought my vape from, and pick a juice. The only juice I've experienced was the one on sale the kid running the register pointed me to, and I said "Yeah, that one, sure." At first it tasted like sugar-coated febreeze. Now it just tastes like sugar, which is kinda equally gross to me. Walking around in a vape store makes me feel sooooo lame. Quitting ain't exactly an option yet, but I have recognized the shape of my vape pen is similar to an anime magical girl's little scepter. I don't know how much longer I plan on being a Sailor Scout, but I smell better and I'm saving money. I don't know what to do with all this. Thought I'd share it, at least. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:35, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Try weed. — Dr. Ox   quack specialist  05:38, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Dude, can't even imagine the anxiety I would feel if I saw I was running out of weed and had to get more weed. I hope you find some soon. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 06:21, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Nah I`m just shitposting, caffeine is my drug of choice. — Dr. Ox   quack specialist  06:25, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, is this my first time on the internet? I was shitposting back, no worries. I thought we were having fun, I used to smoke that shit all day every day.  I don't anymore, it only exacerbates my anxiety.  I can't even smoke alone without worrying everyone is looking at me.  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 01:58, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * My advice: Drink the pain away. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 09:14, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * this is all shit advice from people who clearly have never smoked. @Gol - that voice in your head telling you vaping lame isthe voice of tobacco companies and cancer. step on its throat. also, my experience has been that vape pen are always pretty piss poor vapes. AMassiveGay (talk) 09:33, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Pretty much what User:AMassiveGay said. Your hangups about looking lame while buying vapes is 100% the tobacco company's advertising working on your brain. It's just another product, nobody around you cares, all kinds of people vape these days for nicotine or just for fun, and they certainly won't remember you ten seconds later. Buy a different shaped device if it makes you happy. Hannasanarion (talk) 11:46, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The hell with cigarettes. All these shills for Big Vape just don't want you smoking from a cool-ass antique meerschaum pipe! https://www.icollector.com/item.aspx?i=15787200 You'd be the envy of...oh, someone, maybe? CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 15:14, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I cringely smoked a Walgreen's pipe my freshman year of college. Got really good at packing it, it works the same as a campfire.  You just pack the bottom for a coal and leave something loose on top and puff and puff and puff until you've got a little tobacco coal.  Took it to a frat bonfire and let everyone else just work it out with the pipe and tobacco. To consider this frat, the college was smaller than my graduating class, the only drugs were tobacco and alcohol.  It was a legacy party for a failing school.  I got so hammered I fell asleep alone in a hot tub and somehow survived to see the dawn, but whoever out of the 20 some people who were there chewed the pipe's mouthpiece closed. I didn't buy another pipe.  I didn't start smoking cigarettes until I was 25 years old, leave me alone about that one, I was trying to spend more time with a girl.
 * I semi-successfully went to the vape store today. I stood there and smelled everything from one side of the rack to the other.  The girl behind the counter was like "what are you looking for?"  "I don't know, honestly.  I've only ever had one juice before, so I'm looking for something different."  "Are you looking for something more fruity, or something more pastry-like?"  "I don't know.  Do you have anything that isn't sweet?"  I watched her break for a second, and then she said "Like, blueberry?"  "Ok, sure, blueberry." We settled on a Blue Slushie flavor, which is blue raspberry.  I just had to get out of there. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 01:58, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No bourbon or something? Menthol is bad enough, but berry? It's as if they're marketing these to kids who aren't old enough to smoke yet. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 03:14, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I know, right? There should be a business venture in there somewhere by now, I'm old enough to vape a whisky flavor.  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:46, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * are adults not allowed anything fruity? though i personally go for a tobacco flavour rather than something that tastes like an air freshener AMassiveGay (talk) 08:49, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

"I don't see anything lame about walking to the gas station to buy a pack of reds, or stepping outside to rip a cig" I guess we have different definitions of "lame". (sorry)Hubert (talk) 12:26, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * well done for not understanding smoking and addiction. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * How so? I'm honestly confused by your response.Hubert (talk) 14:58, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * its an entirely redundant statement that only serves to reinforce a smokers sense of comradery over shared experiences and against such shaming statements from people who 'do not understand'. you can see the same behaviours amongst addicts of harder illegal drugs where obvious statements of the harm and inconvenience addicts put themselves through produce the same reaction. for example, the dangers of overdosing are both already well known and mythologised - every addict has a tale of 'when they nearly died'. they'll glady tell you as they take another hit. AMassiveGay (talk) 09:21, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Right. Well, that's clear then. I suppose.Hubert (talk) 10:30, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Lemme address Hubert's assessment first. The main reason I switched from analogue to space cigarettes is because I live in an apartment complex, and it is getting warm.  Officially, the rules are no smoking.  I smoked on my balcony all winter.  And would you believe it, I feel lame for not following the rules.  People are starting to open their windows, and I don't want to be the guy who puts that second-hand smoke in the atmosphere.  Maybe we don't have the same definition of lame, but I am willing to recognize yours, and I am willing to recognize when mine fails.  My right to smoke a cigarette ends where your right to not smell second hand smoke begins.  I don't think it's lame to be against cig smell, versus thinking it's pretty lame to be into vaping candy, which is still very helpful to me in not vaping all day every day.  And yeah, it's fine to enjoy candy.  I personally don't like sweet stuff and feel a little pushed out, but you'll notice that to get that sweet, sweet nicotine, I have settled on something that tastes different from what I'd like. This is a workaround.  I don't love it, it's not ideal, but I'm taking it seriously, at least as a method to deliver nicotine.  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:19, 21 May 2019 (UTC) 02:16, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Vaping is fine in my book, as long as it's used to quit smoking. However, I will say that I'm in school now, and the bathrooms smell like cotton candy windex, not to mention the surprisingly large amount of kids in my grade who started smoking with vape. An ordinary human man (talk) 13:31, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * There was an old TV show featuring Thomas Lennon (of Reno 911), Viva Variety. In one sketch, it satirically advertised flavored nicotine gum as a great way to get kids started smoking. This was in 1997.  Oh, how art imitates life faster than life can keep up.  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:05, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Something I found while searching for info on Cyberpunk 2077
Oh noes, the evil leftist SJWs are pushing for non-traditional gender roles in a game set in the cyberpunk genre... I mean, it's not like the cyberpunk genre was partly born out of a 1990s anti-establishment, anti-capitalist, pro-progress mentality... 15:15, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I had to draw my reply ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:29, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That seems to be the casual reaction to the cyberpunk genre in a nutshell. 15:45, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I know you just typo'd but I still am struggling to think of a reaction that's not causal. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:53, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Cyberpunk seems big on androgyny. It's all boots and tactical pants. Unless there's a gendering in which part of your hair you shave or spike that I'm not picking up on. --Annanoon (talk) 16:01, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That seems to be more a part of punk culture in general. 17:32, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That's basically the Malcolm McLaren (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malcolm_McLaren) fashion side of the punk movement (New York Dolls, Sex Pistols, the boutique Sex, etc... with some liberal borrowing from Richard Hell's stage ethos). I don't consider that side of punk fashion to be super androgynous, but of course there is a link to glam via the Dolls, which is often androgynous. Via cyberpunk there's also a link to "cyber goth" fashion which often can be quite androgynous (as goth fashion overall, also linked to punk, sometimes can be). As far as the OP goes, my best guess is, like all of this activist war crap, very few people who actually intends to play Cyberpunk 2077 at some point are the ones foaming at the mouth 9 months ago (and the people who are foaming at the mouth have moved onto fresh new things to get angry about by now.)Soundwave106 (talk) 18:08, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * GrammarCommie I read the article at the beginning, and it was like, "wow, this is a great thing... But is there also an option of asexuals because there's focus on sleeping next to guys or girls" but then the article suddenly said this


 * """"""Most normal"""""" people!? Is it not normal to acknowledge the existence of intersex or gay people? How is it a game that acknowledges that those people exist considered for "leftists"? Honestly, this article tells me more about this whiny author than the game, that he is bothered that those options exist and that certain minority demographics is shown. Seriously, screw that author. 18:13, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Is One Angry Gamer a site that we can create a page about? Pretty sure they'd be pulling the GamerGate card too... Tinribmancer (talk) 16:15, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Everything I know I learned from College Buddies
I know this may sound crazy, but College Buddies has taught me a lot of stuff. It's very educational and I can really identify with College Buddies. have you had a similar experience? Stanlee (talk) 22:55, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, ok. I'll try and read it.  I recognize that glimmer, I have had literal dreams where I explained Ogre Battle.  I get amped up to tell any character from Fist of the North Star's story.  I need some extra qualifiers though, like an author or a publishing date.  Basically, I can't find it.  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:56, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I assumed College Buddies was the name of a TV series. There doesn't appear to be any series called that. So what the fuck are you on about? Spud (talk) 14:30, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * And since the user who started this thread has just been blocked for being a sockpuppet, I'll probably now never find out. Spud (talk) 14:35, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It's Logicnsuch's "comic". He's spamming us again. 14:41, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, that would explain why Google has zero results for it. It's kind of flattering that he thinks he can use RationalWiki as a launchpad to becoming a multimedia superstar. Spud (talk) 15:11, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I mean, you can find his stuff if you know the right search terms, but he's still a nobody with delusions of grandeur. 15:32, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've just found his "College Buddies: The Music Video" on YouTube. I'm not going to let the little spammer steal another four minutes of my life by actually watching the fucking thing. Spud (talk) 15:44, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It's shit, like everything else he makes. 18:09, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I remember when he tried joining the Discord. He had something akin to a villainous breakdown when he was banned almost immediately. Good times. — Dr. Ox   quack specialist  00:54, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Wow, I guess he almost got me, then. Is it worth reading for funsies  or is he too problematically bad?  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:53, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Idk, ask . — Dr. Ox   quack specialist  10:17, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't ask me. Like I said, I refuse to lose 4 minutes of my life by watching that video. And if any College Buddies comic books exist in a readable form, I haven't been able to find them. I'm very tempted to say that I'm better at drawing than he is, though. Spud (talk) 11:10, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Is it the one about the two wolf boyfriends where one is drawing pictures and the other says "come to bed," and the first says "I have to draw these pictures" and the other is like "you're perfect?" I don't know what to make of this, every time I look for it I just get a deluge of hentai, furry porn, and naked ripped dudes.  Is this what I'm supposed to be learning about life? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:45, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Nerd question
Can an object switch between being a wave and particle? ཨོཾ་མ་ཎི་པདྨེ་ཧཱུྃ (talk) 22:40, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If it is convenient to the object and causes annoyance, probably. (The objects that you are urgently looking for switch to their wave format and revert to particle format when you have wasted enough time and/or acquired a replacement.) Anna Livia (talk) 23:16, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * On the quantum scale yes, on the macroscopic scale no. — Dr. Ox   quack specialist  23:46, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * How would you explain the following phenomenon: Object A can assume a wave and particle function, but most of the time it assumes the former. When Object B, which only has a particle function, interacts with it in the split second that it is a particle, both will assume a wave function in the view of outside observers, but Object B will experience itself as having a particle function. ཨོཾ་མ་ཎི་པདྨེ་ཧཱུྃ (talk) 00:30, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * . — Dr. Ox   quack specialist  00:52, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Also Hubert (talk) 09:54, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You know, if an object could do that, it would go a long way towards explaining a lot of comic book "physics". Kencolt (talk) 20:01, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * As a side question, I've read that virtual particles can be turned into normal ones, does this necessarily mean that the reverse is also possible? ཨོཾ་མ་ཎི་པདྨེ་ཧཱུྃ (talk) 00:26, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Where the hell did you read that? And no, it isn't. — Oxyaena   Harass  01:42, 19 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I read it here ཨོཾ་མ་ཎི་པདྨེ་ཧཱུྃ (talk) 02:19, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * In fact, isn't the idea of making one virtual particle real the idea (or one of the ideas) behind ? Hubert (talk) 14:48, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think an "object" can switch from being a wave to a particle or back. I think information can be misinterpreted, and measuring an object versus a wave does have surprising outcomes.  We're talking about Schrodinger's equation here, if I'm reading this right.  If not, let me know.  The problem is, the object's existence in the quantum is only tracked and implied by the wave, and the wave can have really weird outcomes, as far as an object's properties are concerned.  I've never been able to read math, I don't think I can say much on this.  But thinking that the object can switch between the two is less a part of the paradox as thinking the wave might, and occasionally does, exhibit outcomes that are... Unlikely and unintuitive to object-centric physics.  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:07, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

A valuable lesson I learned over time- only an idiot would want a zombie apocalypse
If someone wants a zombie apocalypse, they think it is easy survival because surviving the apocalypse is depicted as easy in zombie fiction. I guess that these people don't realize that a zombie plague is a disease that chases you and literally bites you in the ass. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:03, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * A zombie apocalypse as depicted in fiction would never happen irl, so these people have their work cut out for them. Just sayin'. — Dr. Ox   quack specialist  01:52, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Zombies are crap. "Oh no, zombies! Amble for your lives!" Avida Dollarsher again 09:18, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Ha ha yeah, the real apocalypse is global warming, which these people have their work cut out for them surviving. — Dr. Ox   quack specialist  09:24, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

So all the many people who actively want a zombie apocalypse are wrong? I'm sure that you are right in that - but that's a fairly niche section of the population to be taking issue with.Hubert (talk) 12:03, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm not sure how "valuable" this lesson is. Avida Dollarsher again 17:28, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You know, that question you get "What are you going to do when society collapses?" is pretty easy to answer. "What everybody does. Maintain society."  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:24, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * not 'get eaten by wolves?' AMassiveGay (talk) 17:12, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Technical difficulties my ass
It doesn't matter what computer I'm using, how good my internet is, or where I am, I still experience the same difficulties, regardless of the website. I know Reddit has a waiting period between comments and posts, even for a guy with 1000 karma, but god dayum I should think 40 hours is enough of a waiting time. And I'm not banned anywhere. I've experienced difficulties posting on Reddit, Rationalwiki, Twitter, and Wikipedia. I had an account on Change.org which has now disappeared completely. My Twitter account was hacked by a guy from Puerto Rico. Someone has attempted to log into my Wikipedia account over 90 times, and Reddit became increasingly hard to use. All of my passwords use weird IPA symbols and are extremely long mind you, I have them save in files just in case I forget them. Is it strange for all this to happen to one person? ཨོཾ་མ་ཎི་པདྨེ་ཧཱུྃ (talk) 04:53, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. — Dr. Ox   quack specialist  09:37, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Reddit had scheduled maintenance and some issues over the last few days. Wikipedia had a problem with a patch installation or somesuch yesterday, and is suffering an ongoing API cyberattack from Grawp (apparently) trying to hack another admin account (he's been at it for months). RationalWiki should have been fine. And as far as Twitter is concerned, any password less than 10 characters long can be cracked now in a matter of minutes, even if it has weird symbols. Also consider using an encrypted password manager. No clue what happened to your change.org account. 11:02, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "experienced difficulties" is a pretty non-specific through-line for issues. Don't end up like the people who start believing in gang stalking.  Try to formulate a specific connection between your various issues, and then test its validity.   ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:17, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Are you A.O.K?
"PS: I really will not allow the simple 👌 gesture to belong to the moronic dogwhistling catfishing foghorning frogmarching pigsticking dickwaving few who attempt to appropriate it for their own fatuous fantasies. T"

Once again, Stephen Fry is the voice of reason. Thinker(unlicensed) 17:47, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Nihilist from the Nile (talk) 12:58, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Health Insurance Logic 101
They like to cover penis pills and breast implants yet they don't like to cover the newest psychiatric medicine or physical therapy or service animals. Penis pills and unnecessary surgeries should not be covered. Maybe someone with Cerebral Palsy needs physical therapy to help improve movement but they can be screwed over. I have heard of things like this.

The United States should adopt the same healthcare system Canada or Norway has. It is far better. No I am not being anti-American, I am just saying we have a shitty healthcare system. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:35, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, something is very wrong when to treat a cancer may mean bankruptcy, no matter what libertarians with their "insurance ruled by the free market and charity for those who cannot afford it" BS may say. Panzerfaust (talk) 09:10, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The biggest problem with healthcare in the US is that everybody has Medicare, Medicaid, or private insurance pumping up prices charged by the providers. It's all about supply and demand. I'll guarantee if Medicaid weren't a thing there would be more dentists around who didn't charge such high prices that uninsured people have to take out a loan to pay them. I would undoubtedly qualify for Medicaid, but I don't believe in it, so I don't have it. 71.3.195.138 (talk) 20:01, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This stupidly complex mishmash of insurance schemes is in fact one of the biggest reasons US health care is so high (high administrative costs, stupidly opaque pricing, lack of price control authority in the public schemes), as well as the perverse, patent-protected monopolies that have engulfed the health care industry. (Generally, when you see obnoxiously high prices for meh level of service, a monopolized industry of some kind is involved. Cable providers are another example.) I believe that the "free market" will create issues that many would find problematic from a moral perspective (see the scandals in the 1980s that led to the EMTALA) so... Soundwave106 (talk) 21:50, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Reminder that we subsidize healthcare for Europe too. 22:10, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Supply and demand doesn't apply: healthcare is inelastic. Raising the price of healthcare doesn't reduce the number of sick people. Hannasanarion (talk) 15:08, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I can answer that easy. Long story short, companies shop for insurance, and the person making the decision of which insurance product to purchase?  Generally, an older male.  If your plan doesn't cover ED drugs, he will go with your competitor's plan.  Yay, free market! CoryUsar (talk) 00:49, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Healthcare is a human right. Free market health insurance is about profit, not people. -RipCityLiberal (talk) 16:47, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Free market healthcare is a mixed bag. One the one hand, you pay more, have sudden unexpected bankruptcies, and are constantly exposed to the terrifying threat of "your money or your life".  But on the other hand, it also delivers much worse medical outcomes.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:02, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It's almost as if you are against medical bills also paying the administrators and accountants required to sort out each individual bill. Be ye against jobs?  And when they are overloaded and give them over to collection agencies, be ye against them jerbs too!?!  Ahem, forgive me, I'm a classical liberal, you know how sometimes our voices crack. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 01:58, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Here in Europe, hearing these US conversations about private/public healthcare is quite curious. In most European countries there's some kind of public healthcare, and it works quite good - in keeping you alive. Usually, if you have a "standard" disease (the flu, a broken leg, appendicitis...) or if you require immediate assistance, then you go for public healthcare. But if you have something which has not an easy diagnosis, you go for the private, otherwise you will wait months for exams and you'll probably get a tons of wrong diagnosis. Thinker(unlicensed) 21:24, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Is the EU Democratic?
Thinker(unlicensed) 15:10, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

D&D and stuff?
I don't know why, but I have to ask. Would anyone here join me for D&D sessions? I'd make some justification for it but honestly, I just want to buff myself to the fucking nines and punch demons with friends. Tyrian (talk) 15:22, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm already running a campaign of my own at college, so I can't join. A bit of advice, though; if you plan on running sessions via the internet, keep your party down to about 4 people, give or take. It's difficult enough managing players in person, but it's even worse over the internet. Good luck with the campaign, though. RoninMacbeth (talk) 16:48, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I would, but I'm too socially awkward to talk to strangers for more than 30 minutes.2601:1C2:4B01:3F5B:4994:6EB0:13F:FE72 (talk) 00:59, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm game. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 03:50, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It would depend on hours and DM flexibility. I do like to run one-off prone-to-death characters though.  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you have a DM secured yet? MirrorIrorriM (talk) 17:35, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I've never played before, is it hard? Nihilist from the Nile (talk) 13:00, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * @Nihilist from the Nile That entirely depends on the DM. The DM controls the setting and the plot.  You open the door and the DM could put a single goblin holding nothing but a rusty dagger, or a hundred angry dragons.  It really depends on if the DM wants to kill the players or not.  I've been DMing for years now, and I can say that killing players is no fun, so DMs typically dont do that just because they can.  MirrorIrorriM (talk) 15:53, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Wish me luck, going to make an article on the Ukrainian Interregional Academy of Personnel Management- David Duke's alma mater
I opened a window to the site and will be digging into the pile of racist bullshit. My irony meter is ready --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:51, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You created a tiny stub, so I moved it into a draft. That was me being nice; the next one gets vapped. 00:36, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Zapped + vaped = vapped? Bongolian (talk) 03:35, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Aren't chiropractors just doctors who work with bones? In such a case,
why call it pseudoscience? 2600:1:F16D:E16C:941C:41E2:C029:C63 (talk) 00:08, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Most Chiropractors pretend to be physicians and many subscribe to various pseudosciences that are billed as natural. In Arizona, Chiropractors are able to be primary care physicians and can prescribe some medications MD's do. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:32, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * To expand -- at their very best, chiros make effective adjustments to the spine that make a patient feel better or improve mobility, and give patients exercises and stretches, and that's it. If that's all they do and claim to do, they're probably not quacks. Others claim essentially everything can be treated with chiro, including ear infections and allergies and autism (which is deeply offensive to non-neurotypical people), and that babies should start with chiropractic from Day 1. There's absolutely no evidence for any of that: so, quackery. Probably most chiropractors occupy some point in the murky ground between those extremes. Some of the medical doctors who do "work with bones" are orthopedic surgeons and rheumatologists. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 04:17, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * A lot of this is covered by this great website where there is a complete article.Hubert (talk) 10:33, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Bone doctors are called orthopaedic surgeons. Chiropractors are glorified masseuses. Hannasanarion (talk) 15:11, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No, no they are not "just doctors who work with bones". They aren't doctors, they don't "work with bones".  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:03, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think I would have a major problem with Chiropractors if their scope of practice was extremely limited. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:34, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You mean like a masseuse? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:20, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Almost every chiro does something dangerous and ineffective: neck cracking, which can cause a stroke. I've been to a chiro but I wouldn't do it now, knowing what I now know. Bongolian (talk) 07:28, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I once worked with a guy who was going to go in to chiro. His dad was a chiropractor. Another guy guy asked him to help with his neck pain, I watched in horror as this aspiring chiropractitioner put him in a full-nelson, lifted him up, and proceeded to shake him around.  I only spent one year wrestling before I was like "nope, not for me" but one of the first things we learned about holds was the full nelson is not ok, it can break a person's neck.  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:45, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

5G
It's a "thing". I don't even know what to call it, but the people who are against it seem to hit most of the mission requirements, with the authoritarian part coming from the Russians, who of course would love it if the US and Western Europe are slow in implementing it.

And the "anti" movement is loaded with bad science.

I can barely remember how to make bold text and sign my name. One you kids is gonna have to write the article!  ħ uman  05:15, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You're alive?! Why not become more active yourself? It would be a great honor to have you as part of the community again. — Oxyaena   Harass  08:04, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Human has a grown up job, and is very busy. I mean, so do I, but I'm a slacker.  And the 5G conspiracies I've seen vaguely mentioned on the internet are: a. it'll give you cancer, b. it can be used to scan your body like a millimeter wave device used at airports "it's a similar frequency, so it MUST work the same way".  Somehow the novel snowcrash is involved.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:09, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Are we talking about the wireless network for mobile devices? 17:36, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed we are. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:43, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm going to go cry into my breakfast now... 17:48, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 5G communications will cover a very wide frequency band: 500 MHz to 6 GHz, and then 24 to 86 GHz. A lot of the paranoia comes from other technologies which fall within these frequency bands.  Now mind you, because of the wide frequency bands, a lot of technology is going to overlap, so the scare examples are usually cherry picks.  One such article is complaining that there are weapon systems at 96 GHz (which is 'close' to 86 GHz) that are used to burn people.  The thing is, if you understand light frequencies, you would know that there is nothing special about the frequencies being used.  High frequency light does not penetrate as deeply into materials as low frequency light (unless you get to extremely high frequencies like xrays or gamma rays, but those are frequencies over 1 million times higher than the GHz band).  Light which does not penetrate an object dumps heat into that object.  96 GHz is a high enough frequency for low penetration depth (less than the thickness of skin), but they are using a system intense enough to cause burning.  It isn't magic.  Transmission speeds are also linearly related to the light frequency (except fiber optics, but those use a different technology).  They want high frequencies because 86 GHz can transmit twice as fast as 43 GHz.  Communications, as technology improves, is naturally going to cover every possible frequency; of course it will overlap with other systems.  The question is intensity, and the articles I've seen always just complain about the frequency.  MirrorIrorriM (talk) 19:33, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yep, nothing is new here, really. Radiation woo has been around for a while, probably since the days of radio for all I know. The biggest thing I see Googling the Reddit conspiracy forum is a whole "mind control" / spying angle, I remember that this was a popular conspiracy for OTA television too. (There are some legitimate concern about electronic government spying, many from Edward Snowden to the EFF have discussed these topics... the conspiracy woomeisters just seems to fail to learn enough bare minimum technical details to know which spying concerns are BS and which are not.) Soundwave106 (talk) 19:36, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a fair concern, actually. The reality is that the intensity is pretty high at the point of broadcast.  But the laws of physics have their place, and the inverse square law reduces "dangerously hot" at 10 centimeters to "can't even feel it" at 10 meters.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:40, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, it could be dangerous - if it were focused and directed. But you could say the same about visible light in the form of a laser. Both visible light and 5G are forms of non-ionising radiation but I would be more worried about sunburn from ultraviolet in sunlight than I would be about brain cancer from 5G. One is a real predictable and preventable problem and the other - well, isn't.Hubert (talk) 15:26, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * What about the threat that 5G will interfere with weather satellites? Supurb (talk) 03:59, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No, 5G network towers shouldn't be able to interfere with weather satellites since they use different transmission protocols. Apologies I didn't see the Arstechnica link. Give me a bit to read it and check the claims therein. 13:26, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sounds like the usual hype about cell phones with the crankery cranked up higher this time. Nihilist from the Nile (talk) 12:47, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Does anybody remember this gem of foil hattery? I see an analogue to the a legitimate concern about Elon Musk's Starlink plan to launch 12,000 satellites to provide global internet (currently underway) may interfere with our very well-honed and understood methods of measuring the universe. This is getting big, NatGeo is taking it on in the last 12 hours.  I don't know what the right answer is here, but I remember that astronomy is, historically, not well funded outside of the private sector. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:34, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Does anybody remember this gem of foil hattery? I see an analogue to the a legitimate concern about Elon Musk's Starlink plan to launch 12,000 satellites to provide global internet (currently underway) may interfere with our very well-honed and understood methods of measuring the universe. This is getting big, NatGeo is taking it on in the last 12 hours.  I don't know what the right answer is here, but I remember that astronomy is, historically, not well funded outside of the private sector. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:34, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

TheAlternativeHypothesis on Contrapoints
What are your thoughts ? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1r7Tl0FYJ64 You better not collapse this like you do anything that challenges your ideological framework. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 2601:ca:8200:34a:65a7:3a48:fa09:2818 / talk 16:23, 20 May 2019
 * But really, I'm not watching a fucking youtube video of some dumbass talking at a camera. You got a point to make, make it.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:38, 20 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if it's even worth anyone's time if all you're going to do is make an anonymous drive-by edit with no guarantee that you'll even come back to read any responses. Also we already have an article on this guy and his racialism.ℕoir LeSable (talk) 16:40, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Doesn't this start with the Nirvana Fallacy? I mean, when the author concedes "whoop-de-do" around 7:40, doesn't he also destroy his own point? From then on, it's flat out floundering to support Race Realism.  It's not great so far.  And holy shit, at 13:00, he is now talking about race realism openly.  Ok, I'm going to dial it back.  He starts around 10:40 and ends around 11:35 admitting his own complaint is not out of line with Contra Point's entire assessment that humans define these differences more often than biology does, but doesn't realize that this is exactly what he is doing.  Then he goes on for 10+ more minutes to say that race realism is justified because humans did it and he likes race realism, and progressive thought is literal fascism.  This is fucking impotent, it is self defeating and it is IMPOTENT.  It's not that it does or doesn't go against any certain ideological framework, it's that it is worth fuck-all, even if it dresses itself up in a bunch of "practically 100%" statements. This video had one job, to counter a single Contrapoints video.  It could not even get that right.   These are not even useful thoughts, they are worthless complaints.Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I support the bill for lowering the cost of prescription medication
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/house-dems-overcome-gop-opposition-pass-bill-lower-drug-costs

Drug companies should not be extorting people, period. As for effective cancer medications many go bankrupt trying to pay for it. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:17, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I mean, paying any price for medicine is crazy to me, but lowering the costs is great. An ordinary human man (talk) 13:26, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Will the government pay the difference between the price established by the drug companies and the lowered price? Because if drug companies cannot make the profit they want, then they lose the incentive to produce drugs. Especially new one, which require very big investments and risks. Thinker(unlicensed) 20:57, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Relativity Denial
I've noticed that a lot of people on relativity videos are constantly spouting how "GPS doesn't really compensate for relativity" and that "relativity is a sham" or how "the creators of GPS don't even believe in relativity". Has anyone gone down this rabbit hole before? Where I work (a calibration laboratory), relativistic effects are straight up measurable as we have to compensate for them when using GPS clocks (not compensating causes some pretty big errors). I simply don't understand why people get so offended at the idea of relativity. The RW page on relativity only mentions people who try to correlate the theory of relativity with moral relativism, but what I've noticed appears to be another animal entirely.

Edit: I just noticed the RW page on Anti-Relativity. I was linked to this site as a "proof" against relativity by some person on the internet. The site is written by one Bernard Burchell. Does anyone know anything about him? MirrorIrorriM (talk) 01:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Burchell appears to be a typical "crank arrogant", the type that proves Dunning-Kruger right and is very typical of "alternative expert websites". They think they know a lot on a subject, but really don't. This guy even links to Paul Gerber, who was used by relativity critics back in the 1920s, showing that this is nothing new. (At least back then there was no atomic clocks and particle accelerators -- these days if you had $10000 (heh) you could take a buy a couple of atomic clocks and prove time dilation effects yourself.) Soundwave106 (talk) 16:33, 21 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Seems like just another timecube guy. Rando with a website that looks like it's from the 90's. I can't find anything about him in a cursory search aside from an obituary for someone of the same name (which could genuinely be coincidence). ℕoir LeSable (talk) 16:07, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Metaphysics Seems......
Like nonsense. I'm not trying to troll here but much of what I see about it has little to no impact on my day to day life. You have some who say that "nothing changes" to others that say "everything changes". Then there are some like Parmenides who said he got his philosophy from a Goddess (which would explain the nuttery of his philosophy).

It's just something that seems like it's nice to think about but that doesn't really do anything, even if you manage to get the answers to the question.Machina (talk) 02:04, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Why worry about it? Philosophy does not pay the rent or put food on the table, so choose what suits you, discard the rest, and get on with the practicalities of life. Castaigne2 (talk) 02:33, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I mean I am a bit concerned about how when I look on the wiki page he is called the Father of Metaphysics, and how Plato respected him. It said "Even Plato himself, in the Sophist, refers to the work of "our Father Parmenides" as something to be taken very seriously and treated with respect." Which might just mean he was the father of a waste of time.Machina (talk) 04:30, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parmenides#InterpretationsMachina (talk) 04:31, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I would have said the same thing. But Looking at the RW page on Metaphysics it looks like there are two different uses. One of which is clearly woo but the other more respectable.Hubert (talk) 13:56, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

It’s that when some people in metaphysics argue that there is no change and no motion because that would involve moving into nothing (which allegedly can’t exist) you’d have to wonder about their marbles at that point.Machina (talk) 20:19, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I think that I might need a new Irony Meter
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKnvwOUtvogKAa_1lDf5NoA

Channel name: TheLastWhiteMan

A hash of every piece of racist bullshit all in one YouTube channel. Plus some conspiracy nonsense for flavor. I could not even finish one video. I might just have to make an article for this one. This might make Alex Jones look sane in contrast. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 07:21, 21 May 2019 (UTC)


 * 14,000 subscribers? That means he meets our YouTuber notability requirement fourteen times over. I wonder if it's time to revise that requirement yet. Spud (talk) 15:26, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Those were bare minimum requirements, not some rule that says we must document everyone who has the number. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:44, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

street preaching videos
It's (redacted trolling) ive come to ensquire, (more), etc in all seriousness, does anyone else here enjoy watching street preaching videos? Ive argued with Christians in person and that and ive been an atheist for yeas but I love watching videos of street preachers ranting at normal people. I think th reason I find it hilarious is most Americans identify with Chritianity but when real bible believers preach scripture they turn into mentalists. 2604:2000:814B:B300:E8AB:A38C:1284:FBFB (talk) 08:40, 21 May 2019 (UTC) aka User:TheAmazingSkeptic
 * No, I find it cringe worthy. Luckily open street proselytizing is looked down upon where I live, in the grand, glorious state of Ohio. — Oxyaena   Harass  13:08, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I do kind of find entertainment in watching the insane. I like reading the clogosphere articles.  I'm not strong enough to actively find them on my own, but post-curation, I do like to scroll through them.  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:53, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I do too, but not Bible thumpers, in public anyways. I like my peace. — Oxyaena   Harass  15:25, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Serial killer
There's a serial killer operating in the town my sister lived in (until two days ago), they are operating in the same park she used to have to walk through to get home from work. They think it's the work of more than two masterminds because they already have one suspect, a black guy, in custody. I`m pretty confident the second maniac will be caught given the recent advances in technology, I`m placing a lot of stock in using genomic databases to catch the criminal, it's how they caught the after all. — Oxyaena   Harass  13:06, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Why the fuck has no one given this section more attention that's a pretty serious issue 03:09, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I noticed that too. — Oxyaena   Harass  05:08, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Does "Your sister lived in" mean she's dead,, or moved away?Summa Atheologica (talk) 13:45, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * i wonder if thats a question that could have been phrased more tactfully AMassiveGay (talk) 14:58, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Moved away. — Oxyaena   Harass  15:24, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I mean, this is a tough one to talk about. Of course I'm against serial killing, is the question about DNA evidence?  I'm not going to ask that, I'm going to be safe and assume as a matter of course you're fully loaded on the topic.  I want anybody's sister to be safe, of course we hope for any serial killer to be stopped.  This is like asking for somebody to call your sister's safety out, and I'm very glad she is safe.  So here I go, is this a question about DNA evidence, on the whole?  Not that it looks like a question at all.  I do appreciate the up-front personal anecdote.  It's just kind of difficult to respond to.Gol Sarnitt (talk) 01:28, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Also it's a comment about DNA evidence, although I suppose it could count as a question as well. Regarding my sister, for which I said thank you, she is currently living with us, although times are a bit hard for her with her husband in jail and her kids in the custody of an abusive grandmother, but she's alive. Again, Gol, thank you. — Oxyaena   Harass  23:38, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Not even Thanks for responding with all those qualifiers.  I feel for you, I'm an uncle myself.  I'm sure you know there is nothing personal about my concern with DNA evidence.  Stories | like this one always give me pause on convictions.  Granted, this specific example I've referenced includes a false eyewitness account in the late 90's.  I might be living in the past on DNA evidence, my peeve doesn't belong here.  There is a thick history of DNA evidence being stored improperly and used/not used as evidence improperly.  But you know what?  I hope we do it right this time, for the sake of everybody.  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 01:09, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

D. B. Cooper
I was reading about D. B. Cooper the other day. It's pretty interesting. We should really have an article about him, or at least mention him and some others in an article about unsolved mysteries, seeing as there's a lot of BS going around about him. An ordinary human man (talk) 13:29, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Bigfoot VS D. B. Cooper may be the greatest portrayal of two legends clashing in a thinly veiled homoerotic exploitation piece ever. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 15:39, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

LoserGate supporter Sargon Of Asshat got demonetized by Youtube
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/5979ax/youtube-has-demonetized-one-of-gamergates-biggest-voices

Didn't even know he joined UKIP. Tinribmancer (talk) 16:37, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Probably more notable as a UKIP MEP candidate tbh. "You know, that one that threatened to rape a MP"  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:46, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * losergate? Asshat? truely we are at the cutting edge of satire AMassiveGay (talk) 17:06, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I always refer to them as "LoserGate", since that's what they are. A bunch of losers. Tinribmancer (talk) 18:03, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * GooberGate supporter Fartgoon of Asswad got his smelly butt wiped by PooTube. 17:56, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Recently I went to one of his rallies where people shouted at him and threw fish and milkshakes. It was epic. 18:37, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sargon of Anchovies. TheUmbilicalCordGuy (talk) 18:41, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Did you film any of that? :P Tinribmancer (talk) 18:53, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Turns out Gamergate supporter (funny enough) Carl "two first names" Benjamin's chosen empire does not give a shit about dropping rape apologists from their Game of Thrones. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:32, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Check the What is going on with the elections? page. there was a 4th milkshaking that happened a few days back against Carl. Not sure which ones are on video, but the photos are great, just Google it, you won't regret it. The photo of the fish.--NavigatorBR(Talk) - 10:56, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Make Pseudoscience Great Again
So apparently, Trump's ICE appointee claims that he can look at migrant youth in the eyes, and determine whether they will grow up to join gangs. I guess we can add parapsychology to the list of pseudosciences he's promoting, right? G Man (talk) 18:29, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, he is a president that seems rather hostile to science at least when it comes to budgeting. (sarc.) Just the type of attitude we need to "Make America Great Again". (/sarc.) At least Congress has rebuffed him so far, Trump tends to be much more hostile than general "GOP science" is (which is fine with science generally until the science becomes inconvenient for commercial or evangelical-rube-fleecin' interests...) Soundwave106 (talk) 18:45, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I would probably not mind him as much if he didn't empower so many conspiracy cranks and woo pushers with his rhetoric. Seems like his biggest accomplishment was bringing wackos of all sorts out of hiding. Politics aside, there are many objective reasons to dislike the man -- especially reasons pertaining to his hostility toward science. G Man (talk) 19:06, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * My non-political reason I don't like Trump: His ego is as big as a blimp. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 21:29, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This one or this?
 * He needs more goat. Anna Livia (talk) 23:00, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the second one. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:59, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Cruelty is the point
In the latest edition of "The Trump administration is xenophobic and hates poor people" HUD proposes stripping housing benefits from people if one member of the family isn't legal. Aside from being definitely Xenophobic, laughably anti-Christian, it actually happens to be as cruel or worse as the first family separation policy. Nothing quite like denying benefits to poor children because one of their parents happened to want a better life for them. Really starting to question whether Hanlon's razor is applicable to this administration.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:20, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Was this legal? Anna Livia (talk) 23:02, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

This is why this anti-abortion crusade is nothing more than an attempt to control women's lives, to me. They don't really care about life, after all. G Man (talk) 23:53, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This is the disheartening thing to me. I grew up/still live in the purple cities of the deep red Midwest.  I can't remember any specific time I heard "hatred comes from a lack of understanding" but for the mid-nineties, it felt like a meme.  Star Wars eventually worked it in to the prequels as a very memetic Yoda "fear to hatred," kinda thing, but I was a damn teenager by that point and bored of it.  I mean, my freshman year, my honors English class was assigned To Kill a Mockingbird.  I was like, "Nobody... has read this book yet?"  Granted, I got a better look at it the second time around, but the pundits have turned this "hatred stems from ignorance" meme into "I understand minority groups and poor people better than they understand themselves, and I hate them for good reason."  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:19, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * ..."describing in graphic terms the potential injuries that border-crossers might receive"...“I’m proud to tell you that was actually my sick idea,”...etc. Cruelty is shared pleasure that fires up his base. . Millennium Scallion (talk) 13:45, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Anti-abortion laws should include a mandatory 'vasectomy at (suitably low age) with previous storage' for all men - which would largely eliminate the issue.
 * What further treatment should be given the legislators involved I leave to other RW-ians.Anna Livia (talk) 16:30, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Though different to an extent from the point I was addressing in this section, I would rather all of this be between a doctor and their patient as to the best choice for them. -RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:18, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Ben Carson, not content only to be racist, now adds transphobia to HUD Policy. Cruelty pure and simple. -RipCityLiberal (talk) 21:03, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Also, attacking Ben Carson on this is not cool.  You know he has that brain thing, or whatever.  We don't talk about it, sure, but we all recognize it.  It is the administration's fault for putting him in that position.  Am I being ablist? Yeah... I don't want to be... But look at the guy, it's clearly not Ben Carson's fault.   Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Brain thing? Are you implying he honed is craft as a skillful pediatric surgeon by operating on himself? Or that he's an imbecile? Because either way he's a disgrace and I literally only wish the worst for him. -RipCityLiberal (talk) 22:35, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Ben Carson is a public official. When he does awful shit, he deserves to be criticized by the people he claims to serve. 23:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, ok, ok, granted. But have you seen the inside of his house? Yes, he is a narcissist, but he is also clearly illiterate, or he wouldn't show off his "poverbs' quote, so I'm also pretty sure he didn't write his own book.  Maybe he's a savant, a steady hand and a clear understanding of how to not destroy a physical brain when operating on one.  But you don't appoint this guy to any role that requires literacy.  Just flat out.  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:10, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh the irony, the verse from Proverbs about humility lol. — Oxyaena   Harass  05:57, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If tomorrow, it was revealed that Ben Carson was suffering from dementia, I still wouldn't give a shit because along with all this bullshit he's also corrupt -RipCityLiberal (talk) 18:01, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Renewable Energy Article
So, I'm thinking of adding a new section to our Renewable energy page; energy storage and transmission. It's more of a general electric grid thing, so I'm wondering if this is closely tied in enough with renewable energy to be worth putting in. The issue is that renewables such as wind and solar are generally not "on-demand" energy sources, and as such, would require extra infrastructure to be used as a power backbone for any country. We do make a lot of mention of pumped-energy storage, which is a form of hydropower, as well as extremely high voltage transmission lines, but I'd like to organize that into their own section and add quite a bit more. For instance, battery storage for electric cars, even though an electric car article alone would probably be worthwhile.

Any thoughts?CoryUsar (talk) 01:00, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, sounds fine. RoninMacbeth (talk) 01:33, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I see some stuff has been added. There's a lot of talk from the anti-renewables/pro-fossil-fuel people about how renewables will never be able to replace fossil fuels because of this sort of issue ("what happens when the wind stops blowing?" or "What happens at night?"), so an analysis of those claims, and how feasible it would be to rely solely on renewables, would be useful. --Annanoon (talk) 15:41, 24 May 2019 (UTC)


 * This might interest you.
 * Intermittency is the Achilles heel of wind and solar power, yes. They are also highly dependent on location. Nerd (talk) 14:53, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * this might also be interesting. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:08, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Had a Neo-Nazi troll comment on my Nazi Zombie EAS scenario
Before I could report it, the comment was gone. Just because a video depicts Nazi's does not mean a creator supports Nazi's. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 22:03, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Should be a corollary or perhaps counterpoint to Godwin's Law: sooner or later, any time Nazis are mentioned, a racist will be offended. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 03:05, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised it took this long. You're doing a political commentary (whatever you want to call it), and even if it's parody the Children of Poe will take notice, and will make their displeasure known.  Usually with naughty words and suggestions of "negative" sexuality, ethnicity, and/or political or religious beliefs.  Quite probably your ancestry too.  That you even imply surprise that you received such on your channel astonishes me. Kencolt (talk) 05:37, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "Just because a video depicts Nazi's does not mean a creator supports Nazi's" I like to call that the "Sabaton problem". 05:55, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I love sabaton, but the comments on every video are "des vult!" and "Aktchually, the pinkos were worse than the nazis. An ordinary human man (talk) 12:46, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

@whoeverthehellmadethis you are one of the best human beings ever. honestly finding this website turns school from boring to amazing. depending on whether they find the website, it will probably be blocked 5 days after typing this, but yknow what, idgaf13:37, 29 May 2019 (UTC)71.255.143.22 (talk)
 * We're glad you appreciate the site, anon! As long as you keep discussion civil and, well, rational, you are always welcome here. 13:44, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * He is saying that he fears the network nazis at his school will block the site if they become aware of it. Nihilist from the Nile (talk) 13:52, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

College fraternity
I moved the college fraternity page from draftspace to mainspace if anyone wants to have a readthrough or edit. It can still use more work, but it's fairly fleshed out. Bongolian (talk) 07:41, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I would like to say, I pledged and was accepted to a fraternity at a private faith-based college that was smaller than my high school. There were 3 frats on campus, one of which was Christ-forward and teetotaling, obviously I was not interested in that one.  But, as per the one I joined, I can't find, nor would I lodge any arguments against the article.  It was a fun group, it wasn't nasty or bullying.
 * As per personal experience with pledge hazing, we had to give up our school schedules during pledge week. If we were caught on campus and not on the way to class, the library, or our dorms during our pledge, we would get blindfolded and dropped just outside of town.  The threat was being chased down, but nobody ever ran away seriously.  It was more fun to get caught in front of your friends.  Still, there were rumors that the football frat did things a little too wild.  But I grew up hearing stories about how my dad was in a frat that would forcibly kidnap every member on his birthday, strip him naked, and dump him into the fountain.  He would then have to run across campus to the girls' dorms to pick his clothes up.  I was prepared for a lot worse than just a bunch of genuine college-age children who wanted to carry on the act of hazing and drinking without actually hurting anybody or letting anybody hurt themselves. But yes, hazing, alcohol, secrecy, and an obligatory touch of community service were all a part of it.  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:09, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

independent.co.uk... a decent news source?
I've heard that most of the UK news media is pretty awful, but does the Independent count as a decent (if not good) source? Towards-the Unknown (talk) 18:05, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * who says its pretty awful? stay away from red tops and you are generally fine. the independent is fine, but no by no means the best. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:25, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a real newspaper that has a long history of having some kind of editorial standards. I wouldn't say it's the best, but you know, it's way above "making up stories" level.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:38, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Avoid Express.co.uk. They make stories up as they type. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 21:29, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The Express is 'slightly' to the right of Genghis Khan (as the saying goes).
 * Believe what you will of the Sunday Sport. Anna Livia (talk) 22:58, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You know, other than the wars, for his time, Khan was really pretty progressive. His khannate abolished both slavery and state religion.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 03:24, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The term is a trope - and nobody at the time would have understood the 20th century definitions of left and right. There was much violence associated with the expansion of the Mongolian empire - and he is the ancestor of 'a certain percentage' of the population of Eurasia. Anna Livia (talk) 11:48, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * used to be a very respectable and trusted news source. It set out to be independent of control by a proprietor thanks to having multiple owners each with a small shareholding, but by 1998 was entirely owned by one man, making its name nonsensical. But it was still generally seen as a quality paper with a lot of respected columnists and reporters. In 2010 it was bought by who is a Russian oligarch but one skeptical of Vladimir Putin's rule. It still has a socially-liberal, pro-free-market, pro-European Union standpoint. Even before Lebedev took over, it was trying to focus on comment and columnists rather than day-to-day reporting, "a viewspaper not merely a newspaper" according to Tony Blair's put-down. But under Lebedev's control it has seen a lot of cuts and now has a very small staff.
 * Now its main interests are opposing Brexit and supporting clickbait. That means it's no worse than most British newspapers (The Daily Telegraph and even to a degree The Guardian have taken a similar route into comment, sponsored content, listicles, and other low-brow articles.) Because it doesn't have many reporters it doesn't originate many stories, although its strengths include detailed coverage of right-wing populism in the UK from Farage to the Football Lads' Alliance. As with all newspapers, beware copy-and-paste journalism and try and see where a story originated, but as a news source it's not inherently deceitful in my opinion. --Annanoon (talk) 16:00, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It’s usually worth checking out Robert Fisk at The Indy for a broader view of the Middle East (he has lived in and reported from the greater Middle East for more than 40 years). Their political stuff is, as mentioned by Annanoon, usually social liberal, though often of a more leftward bend (à la pre-Blair Labour) than, say, The Guardian (New Labour/LibDem). While its political editor has the same love of Corbyn bashing as pretty much any of the political editors in the UK, you are more likely to find positive stories about Labour in The Indy than almost any other major UK newspaper.
 * I’d also agree that with Annanoon that it has gotten more click bait’y and comment focused over the years. This doesn’t mean, however, that it stoops to the out and out invention and salacious scandal gossiping of the UK tabloids. What sets The Indy and Grauniad apart in the UK newspaper landscape, is that they are about the only major papers that aren’t pro Tory (or even further to the right), making the formers’ rather pedestrian social liberalism seem as the definition of left wing (rather than centre-left). (Un)fortunately (depending on your political views), this indirectly contributes to the general rightward slant of the entire UK mediascape and thus public discourse by making this pedestrian social liberalism the farthest leftward “respectable” position within the of British politics. ScepticWombat (talk) 04:24, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * if the guardian or the independent are 'clickbaity' (they dont seem too bad to me on that score tbh - they aint buzzfeed) its because they are free to view but still have bills to pay. the physical copies certainly doesnt cover costs these days. what do people want for free? they do a fantastic job considering and headlines are supposed to draw you in to look further. its always been foolish to take headlines at face value, and they article still might be interesting if doesnt match - at worst you've lost seconds of day.
 * and they got the best crossword app online AMassiveGay (talk) 18:07, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * the guardian that is AMassiveGay (talk) 18:13, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Did I Hallucinate?
So one time when I was actually into meditation (after like a few weeks) I noticed that one time my vision changed from blackness (I had my eyes closed) to a bright and clear sky blue (as though there wasn't a single cloud in the sky). I was outside during this. When I opened my eyes it vanished. Everything was black (kind of like if you close your eyes and then after a bit open them), but nothing special really. Was this some kind of hallucination, I know they can happen in meditation.Machina (talk) 04:05, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I've found that sometimes, if the moment is right, I can visualize things in my mind very clearly. I find it useful for breaking writer's block.  It is more common than a lot of religious groups would have you believe.  Religions like to claim monopoly on "spiritual" effects like this, but most of these can just be chalked up to how glitchy of a piece of hardware the human brain is.  I'm no Neuro-Ophthalmologist, but I did take courses in the visual systems of the brain.  In summary, the brain does not see a direct input from the eyes at all, it just gets topology information and "fills in the blanks".  For example, you physically cannot see color in your peripheral vision, but your brain is coded to use its pool of knowledge to "fill in the blanks" and just insert color in there.  You even have a massive blind spot right near the center of your vision that your brain just guesses what is inside it based on your memory.  If you can trick your brain into thinking you're looking at something when you are not, it will start making up a complete picture that isn't there at all.  This isn't because of some magical effect, but because that is what it is doing all the time.  MirrorIrorriM (talk) 11:01, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. — Oxyaena   Harass  02:47, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I haven't done psychedelics in about 10 years. When I did, anxiety always played a part, but didn't cripple me.  I liked tripping alone best, because I could lay down and practically nap out during the peak, which at the time everybody told me was impossible.
 * I took some LSD this past weekend. I know it's supposed to be a new field in medicating things like anxiety and depression, and I've read a lot about flight plans, so I thought I had it fairly figured out.  I thought I'd give it a shot, see what I could get out of it.   Nope, this was like 5x stronger than the stuff I took as a dumbass kid.  As soon as it kicked in, I immediately blacked out for around 45 minutes (which I guess has happened to almost everybody who has tried this batch).  When I came back, I had really strange memory recall while actively tripping harder than I've ever tripped, it felt like time dilation, I couldn't tell what had happened almost an hour ago and what was currently happening.  I'm not the only person to report this effect from this batch.  When the full on hallucinations ended (which weren't pleasant, but I kept asking myself "what am I supposed to learn here?"), I was able to move intentionally but kept having flashbacks, so I kept trying all my lucid dream tests.  Check the time.  Look at my hand.  Turn one light on, leave the room, turn one light off, move to the bathroom (not trying to catch myself in a dream and piss the bed).  I tried (and failed) to take a shower in those first 45 minutes, I'm sure of that by this point.  So here I am, creeping around my apartment naked and half wet turning lights on and off, not sure if I'm asleep or insane or just tripping.  I saw/heard/felt a lot of things I didn't like.  When I could finally fully compose myself, I was so mentally exhausted from fighting off a bad trip that I just had to lay in bed.  Some cool stuff happened there.  I simultaneously felt like the universe was forcing me to lay down to explain that existence is arbitrary, then to tell me a beautiful love poem about existence, then that I had been held against my will to hear it.  Then, of course, I was awake for the next 20 hours.  The experience was fine, in retrospect, even if it caused a lot of trouble for me.  I don't know if I'd go back to LSD.
 * I'd suggest meditation or finding some reliable underground psychedelic guide over DIY hallucination. I've heard there is an actual underground of psychologists that do some psychedelic work at the risk of jailtime and losing their license. I know micro-dosing is getting popular, but I'm just not about that.  I might try psilocybin again some day, but LSD is too much for too long for this tired boy.   Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:07, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Footage of Nancy Pelosi doctored to make her look "drunk"
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/nancy-pelosi-slurring-speech/ Some asshats decided to edit footage of Nancy Pelosi by slowing down the footage and pitch-shifting it to make her sound slurred and drunk during a speech. Of course our good old buddy Trump decided to get into the action too with his very own doctored video as well, also included in the link. Why exactly do we trust this guy as our president again? 18:00, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, you don’t want a communist baby-murderer DEMONcrat President who will send white patriots to extermination camps, do you? 23:02, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * What makes this especially ironic is that there are several clips of 45 that don't need to be edited and he still seems drunk or high-RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:08, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but Trump supporters just do not care about that shit. As far as they're concerned, Trump is saving the country from a literal evil cabal. They'll ignore any and all of his shortcomings as a leader and man. 23:42, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * is getting busy again. Yesterday I ran across an account posting just the video footage on YouTube with the headline "Nancy Pelosi Drunk!" and noticed the comments section was completely full of Trump praise from accounts with didactic names like "AmericanBoeingWorker". Checked today and YouTube has removed it. Millennium Scallion (talk) 14:07, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh ye of little faith
The Ark Encounter has sued its flood insurer for not paying up. Bongolian (talk) 20:52, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Bongolian Does that mean God hates Biblical literalism? :p Towards-the Unknown (talk) 01:58, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This just made my day. ཨོཾ་མ་ཎི་པདྨེ་ཧཱུྃ (talk) 22:39, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This what happens when you use mortal things like "insurance" instead of putting your Faith in God and Jesus, preferably Jesus. 03:04, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * God has a sense of humour. Anna Livia (talk)
 * Sure, we can replicate an ark for fun and profit, but we're so true to the word that surely God would have told us to fortify our access roads if it wasn't already in the insurance company's hands. Biblical literalists make for the most pathetic capitalists. John 2:16.  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:24, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note that the "heavy rains in 2017 and 2018 caused a landslide on its access road... the ark itself was not damaged." The title of the source seems sensationalist, to say the least. Supurb (talk) 04:13, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Right behind you on that, but to seek reparations for damages caused by what would "historically" be a literal act of God is a little... Less than Biblical.  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:59, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

IQ rates are dropping in many developed countries
NBC News: "People are getting dumber. That's not a judgment; it's a global fact. In a host of leading nations, IQ scores have started to decline."

Why? Thinker(unlicensed) 08:49, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The text says that the baseline 100 mark has been repeatedly reset - so comparisons over time are to some extent meaningless. It also mentions that 'core cognitive skills' are measured - the core-ness may well change over time (how much does the shift from multi-base systems of measurement to metric affect mathematical skills - and how does 'being able to analyse the validity of an internet source'/'understanding maps get measured in terms of IQ?
 * To what extent do 'high scores on IQ tests' and 'being a leader/a major expert in something' actually correlate?Anna Livia (talk) 11:04, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "The text says that the baseline 100 mark has been repeatedly reset - so comparisons over time are to some extent meaningless."
 * As far as I understand, IQ measurements are designed so that 100 point is the mean of a normal distribution with standard deviation of 15 points. Of course this is not done every time an IQ is given to a sample of individuals (otherwise it would be actually impossible to measure the changes over time, the average individual would be always 100 points IQ), but only once the specific test is designed. So, yes, there are "resets" when new tests are introduced, but I'm sure that is taken into account in these studies.
 * "To what extent do 'high scores on IQ tests' and 'being a leader/a major expert in something' actually correlate?"
 * The discussion of how much IQ correlates with other things is interesting, but not the subject of these thread. Thinker(unlicensed) 15:20, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It's normed to 100 on White British or such ancestry. So if it's dropping it's because of Somalis, Mexicans, etc. Who could have predicted this? There is more DNA variation at the submicroscopic level within groups though, so it's because white people make racist schools, or something. Maybe when all the whites are replaced by third world people the IQ will finally reach unprecedented levels. I'd like to thank Rationalwiki for helping make this possible. Sponger (talk) 15:49, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Glad to be of service. :} 16:04, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Suppose test scores are dropping. This is not the same as a decline in intelligence. Intelligence tests tend to measure various skills related to arithmetic and reading capabilities. One explanation might be people don't practice those skills as much anymore. It would surprise me if test scores weren't lower.Ariel31459 (talk) 20:46, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * IQ tests are not based on skills related to arithmetic and reading, they are based on visual patterns recognition. Thinker(unlicensed) 11:20, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Your claim is absurd on its face: "IQ tests are not based on skills related to arithmetic and reading." Standard IQ tests are entirely dependent upon reading and arithmetic skills. There are non-verbal tests, but those are not the ones being referenced. That much is obvious.Ariel31459 (talk) 14:02, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Try oneAriel31459 (talk) 14:23, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "Standard IQ tests are entirely dependent upon reading and arithmetic skills."
 * Well, now that I have checked, you are right saying that most of them are dependent upon reading and arithmetic skills. However, they are not entirely dependent, because of tests using Raven's progressive matrices. I have done some IQ tests in the past (in Europe), and they where all based on Raven's progressive matrices. Thinker(unlicensed) 18:14, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Do you think the Great Recession and widening income inequality have anything to do with it? 21:08, 25 May 2019 (UTC)


 * My point was that there is more to 'intelligence' than 'being able to do IQ tests'/IQ tests can only measure some aspects. Someone who habitually uses the metric system will have different 'mathematical-arithmetical skills' to someone who has to do complex calculations involving the various non-metric systems of weights and measures; and persons living in mono-linguistic and poly-linguistic/dialect environments will score differently on the verbal skills tests; and we know enough stories of the self-proclaimed intelligent people who are scammed/inverse stopped clocks etc.
 * If IQ test rates are falling - is it a weakness 'in the people' or 'in the testing methods? Anna Livia (talk) 22:31, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It could also be a societal failing, as I said. If you're malnourished and undereducated, of course test scores will falter. I find the conclusion that people are "getting dumber" really premature and way to dumbed down for me to take seriously. 22:47, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Malnourishment can effect education and testing. But "the proportion of undernourished people in the world has declined from 15 percent in 2000-2004 to 11 percent in 2014-2016." They say it is increasing again, but probably not so much in developed countries.Ariel31459 (talk) 04:05, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

This was a classic concern troll meant to stoke racial fears. He copies topics from 4chan, titles and all. Millennium Scallion (talk) 18:06, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * LOL the title is copied from NBC News... Thinker(unlicensed) 18:15, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * What if 'IQ tests' are analogue in a digital world? Anna Livia (talk) 23:09, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Even Breitbart copies from NBC when it serves their purpose. Millennium Scallion (talk) 13:55, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * As is the case here. I have no problem with Evan Horowitz's general work (I mostly know of him as a contributor for FiveThirtyEight), but this contribution wasn't terribly good. The "Flynn effect" has been known to have no longer applied for roughly a decade now, so this isn't news. However, based on data I see (see the Wiki graph), I would initially describe this as "leveling off" instead of "decline" based on a general scan I see (eg, not relying on just one study). Even here, caution is needed, because much of the data on IQ tests are very US/European-centric. (Some developing nations have leapfrogged in technological progress and general health / nutrition over the last couple decades, and I bet the Flynn effect is still going strong there.) In the mean time, this article gave a bunch of (ironically) low-intelligence clickbait like the (ironically named) American Thinker a chance to do the atypical thing about using the Internet to (ironically) rant about the Internet's contribution to the decline of humanity. Meh. Soundwave106 (talk) 14:16, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * IQ is a shitty measure of intelligence. It also moderately prejudiced against people in lower-socioeconomic classes. So this concern is misplaced. -RipCityLiberal (talk) 16:18, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * While recognizing it is prejudiced, isn't IQ also measured as a statistic based of the number of people taking the test and their scores? Shouldn't it be taken into account that more people are able to take an IQ test, globally, and this shows that the original bastions of IQ aren't so much smarter than people who, previously, never got to take the test? Of course the score is lower, there's a bigger sample size.  This means your score is lower too, I will afford you some time to come to terms with that realization.  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:11, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Kiwi Farms joins the ProJared discussion
https://twitter.com/AtelierHeidi/status/1130927504238075904

Apparently, his wife and her fans are getting shit from the kiwi's on their forums and on Twitter? Tinribmancer (talk) 20:31, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh boy, is news on a troll site's stance on things ever worth discussing? 21:06, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It's best to stay away from these things imo, engaging in internet drama for too long is not conducive to mental health. I speak from experience. — Oxyaena   Harass  21:59, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Dark Matter
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhG1kHbRppY&t=131s Courtesy Isaac Arthur. — Oxyaena   Harass  02:32, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Researching alternatives to traditional vaccines for those who cannot get vaccinated
This is not some alt-med anti-vaccine thing but rather developing immunizations for those who are medically unable to get shots. People who have Allergies, AIDS, cancer or autoimmune diseases cannot get vaccinated and are at risk of infections. Someone should fund a research project like this to help those who medically are unable to get vaccines. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 02:46, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * For bacterial infections there is a technique known as phage therapy. It involves injecting phages into your blood stream.  Phages are highly specialized viruses that can infect only a single strain of a single kind of bacteria.  They evolve extremely quickly and can adapt faster than almost any known cell.  However, phages look scary so I bet people wouldn't accept it on that alone.  MirrorIrorriM (talk) 09:51, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * There are at least two and possible three problems with the suggestion.
 * The first being that "someone" should do the research. Medical companies won't do it because the market being targeted is, in percentage terms, tiny. So there would be little profit from sales. Governments won't be very interested because, in percentage terms, not a lot of voters will be affected.
 * The second problem is that, in social terms, people who can't receive vaccinations are not the problem. The problem is the stupid bastards who could get vaccinations but don't. If all eligible people who could receive vaccinations took them then there would be sufficient herd immunity to protect the poor people who really can't receive them.
 * The third problem is that (that as far as I am aware) there is no conceivable alternative to stimulating the immune system in order to produce proactive protection. (Phages, mentioned above, are really another kind of treatment like antibiotics.)
 * Reason I mentioned this was that the threat Pro-Plague people pose to Herd Immunity. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 16:04, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that this is a problem. But the solution is fix the system we have rather than to find "someone" to invest in an unnecessary, highty-expensive and enormously-speculative blue-sky solution to work round something we already have a clear and effective answer to.Hubert (talk) 14:49, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe off-topic, but I'd just like to point out that the reason I'm against anti-vaxx is because of this crowd that can't get vaccinated, but would if they could. This is, afaik, the best argument against "you're vaccinated so why do you care if I am." Supurb (talk) 04:20, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the best argument against "you're vaccinated so why do you care if I am" is simple evolution. If the bacteria or virus stays around long enough, then it will adapt to become resistant to the vaccine.  Although there is a strong correlation (at least in the United States) between anti-vaxxers and evolution deniers.  MirrorIrorriM (talk) 21:00, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Archiver broke
Really don't care enough to fix it. Email me if you want passwords. 58.84.108.187 (talk) 06:03, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * ...Kazitor? — Oxyaena   Harass  10:02, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * yep. 58.84.108.187 (talk) 06:55, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh by the way, could someone please unprotect my userpage? That was a bit hypocritical of me, in retrospect. 58.84.108.187 (talk) 07:00, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You're still a sysop, so you can do it, or did you lose your password? Bongolian (talk) 07:44, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I unblocked you. Maybe that's what you wanted? Bongolian (talk) 07:45, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I have the password; it's that I blocked myself for a reason. The point of LANCB is to not come back, and I'd been doing a pretty good job of that. 58.84.108.187 (talk) 10:30, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. — Oxyaena   Harass  11:30, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks; that should be everything I've since wanted to do. 58.84.108.187 (talk) 07:56, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Spud's latest Esperanto translation
I'd like to announce that I have just created the page Frankenŝtejno, an Esperanto translation of the Frankenstein page. I am making this announcement because I created the page as a draft and then moved it to main space, meaning that it won't show up in the New pages section. I am also boasting a bit. Spud (talk) 10:44, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Spud! Bongolian (talk) 18:33, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Excellent Spud. 21:54, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep up the good work, buddy! 06:29, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Korajn damkojn, miaj karaj amikoj! Spud (talk) 12:59, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

crossword
i am stuck. i have 'lamb _r_a_d_' Dish, while in pot, Greek character covers (4,7) a forum suggests an indian dish but i cannot find anything that would fit. Any suggestions? AMassiveGay (talk) 11:27, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Google says lamb pasanda but that would imply one of the other letters is wrong, leaving a peculiar conundrum. 12:28, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * it is pasanda thanks. the r was suspect AMassiveGay (talk) 12:42, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Is art conceptual by nature?
I just wonder if it is truly possible to create non conceptual art, as wouldn’t the making of such art itself involve the very concept of what is “art”? Furthermore wouldn’t non conceptual itself be a concept since it is in opposition to something else?

It just came across my mind in a Buddhist magazine about an exercise in taking photos without conceptualizing things, yet I can’t help but wonder if it is possible. I mean what moves you to take such a photo is likely some idea right? Would that make inspiration conceptual then?Machina (talk) 21:34, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Is a definition of a definition a definition by definition? — Oxyaena   Harass  22:45, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, so there's a circular problem here. The photographer always has a concept if a photograph is being taking.  Holding the camera with the intention of having a photo, even if you don't know when or where or what will be photographed is pretty conceptual.  The subject of the photograph could have no concept of the photograph, but I think this is a backwards suggestion.  Like, the only way this might work is by setting a camera to some kind of random photo timer without ever looking at the photos it takes.  But that's still got a pretty definite concept behind it.  The more important thing is to not actively wish you had been present for things you did not see.  Especially in this era of fear of missing out, this seems pretty anti-Buddhist.  Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:31, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Breaking up Internet law into multiple pages
Hi, I'd love to get some input on breaking Internet law into multiple pages. Thanks! SocialismDoneLeft (talk) 01:03, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * What's the benefit of breaking it up? Bongolian (talk) 04:43, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Search traffic? — Oxyaena   Harass  20:14, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Definitely search traffic. And also probably easier browsing too. And those internet laws tend to be pretty different from each other. I kinda think political orientation article shouldn't have been merged either. Just really inconvenient and pretty bloated and always felt arbitrary that merge. 06:29, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Not really conservative
Although called Conservapedia, it does espouse the idea that the story of Jesus and the woman taken in adultery was a later additon, a secular idea which most fundamentalists would opposed. Even the Bible Project is something that would be considered heresy by conservatives. Thus, Conservapedia is not really conservative or fundamentalist. Rather, it uses both liberal and conservative ideals its higher authorities agree with, despite being proclaimed as conservative. 2600:1:F145:7930:E60D:4C93:D2F6:E3B6 (talk) 02:15, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's a quibble. Andrew Schlafly, the dictator of Conservapedia, is a fanboy of Satanists. See Conservapedia. Bongolian (talk) 05:00, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I laugh at you gullible sheep who haven't yet figured out that Schlafly is paid by the CIA to discredit Republicans by making them seem rabidly insane. You think Conservapedia is for real? It's a psyop, people. Wake up! 05:08, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I am shocked to discover that not all Christians believe the same thing.Hubert (talk) 11:44, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

BREXIT PARTY
is jumping for joy right as the Brexit Party led by Nigel Farage wins a ton of UK European Parliament seats. But do not fear, as various remain parties have also done very well with the Liberal Democrats and Green getting also lots of seats. 09:41, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * we'll be out of the eu by october. i'm still not sure why anyone here was standing. except for farage. he wants the pension. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:23, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You're not wrong, I am pretty happy with the results. The funny thing is the Remainers are trying to say that the success of the Lib Dems and the Greens are a clear mandate for another referendum - ignoring the fact that the combined vote share for the Brexit Party, UKIP and the Conservatives is higher than the combined vote share of the Lib Dems, Greens, SNP, Change UK and Plaid! --RWRW (talk) 12:43, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * the results were meaningless and until the the 7th, the main parties were operating on the understanding there would be no election in the uk. this gives no one a mandate, brexiter or remain, no matter how anyone wants to spin it. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:36, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * and aside from anything else, how'd you come to the conclusion that pro bexiters beat out remainers? unambiguously remain parties trounced the combined ukip and brexit parties. you included the tories who are divided on the issue, and you ignored labour, more likely remain, but ambiguous at best. remove both lab and con, remain wins out. include them, remain mostly wins out. your claim is bullshit. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:49, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The Conservatives, useless though they are at delivering it, stood on a manifesto of delivering Brexit. I would imagine that the vast majority of the Remainers within their ranks already jumped ship to the Lib Dems and should therefore be counted as a pro-Leave party. Labour is a lot more complicated I'll admit, but I still can't see that many Remainers voting for them when there was such a range of centre-left - left-wing parties with a pro-EU message. --RWRW (talk) 16:00, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * you are making assumptions based on nothing. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:16, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed. The reason the Conservatives and the Labour party lost out was because of their ambiguity on Brexit. If they had not been ambiguous they would have claimed the votes of one side or the other. In consequence, in terms of this argument, they should not be counted either way. Hubert (talk) 18:07, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * A very similar argument could be made for excluding the Green Party from the Remain vote, since a considerable amount of their votes came from their position on climate change and had little to do with their EU position (a fact they themselves admit). Besides, there is nothing 'ambiguous' about the Conservatives Brexit position - they are clearly in favour of leaving. They lost so many votes not because they are divided between Leave and Remain, but because of their poor attempt at delivering Brexit. --RWRW (talk) 18:48, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If the Conservative party was so clear on Brexit then they wouldn't have been deserted by so many of their Brexit-supporting voters. While their official stance may be one thing it is blindingly obvious that many of their actual MP's do not support that line - hence the ambiguity. And hence their support disintegrating.  If you have some other explanation for Brexit-supporting voters not supporting them I would like to hear it.Hubert (talk) 20:12, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, there’s debate within the party as to whether they support a hard/no-deal Brexit or a soft Brexit, but either way they should still be considered a pro-Brexit party. The only reason they aren’t being considered a pro-Leave party is because it fits into the Remainers narrative that there is a mandate for another referendum. —RWRW (talk) 20:38, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You still haven't clarified your comment: "Besides, there is nothing 'ambiguous' about the Conservatives Brexit position - they are clearly in favour of leaving." If there is "nothing ambiguous" in their position, why didn't their pro-brexit supporters vote for them?Hubert (talk) 06:36, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Mainly because of their poor handling of Brexit. Had they done their job properly the UK would have already left and the Brexit Party would have never been launched. --RWRW (talk) 11:46, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I suppose that one man's "poor handling" could be another man's "ambiguity".
 * But I still think you are dodging the question. You said: "Besides, there is nothing 'ambiguous' about the Conservatives Brexit position - they are clearly in favour of leaving."
 * I interpret the poor showing of the conservatives to be the result of their ambiguity. Reading your comment above I guess you are blaming their incompetence.
 * Because, I would suggest, that if there was "nothing ambiguous" in their stance then we must blame Conservative voters for being too stupid to realise this.
 * So are you going for incompetence by the Conservative party or stupidity on the part of their voters?Hubert (talk) 14:41, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The main point I made was higher up in this thread was that the Conservatives cannot be considered anything other than a pro-Brexit Party. Of course the Conservatives have been incompetent, and of course they are are divided. But they are only divided on how to deliver Brexit, there is no division on whether or not they should deliver Brexit at all. There is not a single leadership contender who wants to revoke Article 50 and there isn't, as far as I'm aware, a single Conservative MP who supports revoking Article 50.
 * The whole idea that the Remain side won the election was conjured up by Alistair Campbell - who is (surprise surprise) a very intelligent Spin Doctor. --RWRW (talk) 19:25, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, then as I said their utter incompetence was interpreted by ambiguity by their voters who handed them the worst defeat in 200 years. (Or you could be right and it was just their incompetence.)Hubert (talk) 19:35, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * the poor handling is because there is no good brexit deal to be had. had they done their job properly, we wouldnt be leaving at all. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:11, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It's pretty clear that at least three or four more referendums on Brexit are needed to establish the positions of British citizens. Thinker(unlicensed) 19:55, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Ha! Ever considered joining the Lib Dens? —RWRW (talk) 20:38, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually it is a cunning plan by the sheeple to keep the politicians so tied up in 'Brexit negotiations' they do not interfere with what the country. Anna Livia (talk) 12:26, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Why not just fucking have a new referendum? This whole thing is a fucking rodeo of clowns, and you people make fun of America. — Oxyaena   Harass  08:09, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Its quite amusing, one of the big criticisms of the EU is they ignore/attempt to overturn referendum results they don't like. And the first thing EU supporters did after the Brexit result was to push for another referendum. If anything they have vindicated our views on the EU's attitude to democracy.
 * And what happens if Leave wins for a second time? Do the Remainers push for best of 5?--RWRW (talk) 09:27, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * What's most amusing about this dumpster fire is that no one really has defined what "Brexit" is. Whenever someone tries to define the details of what "Brexit" is, there are howls of anger from pretty much anywhere. Apparently Brexit is the classic example of the old phrase "be careful what you wish for, it might come true". So thanks from the shitshow from across the pond, it actually makes US politics look good in comparison which in the Donald Trump era is quite an accomplishment to be honest. Soundwave106 (talk) 13:07, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Because as we all know in a democracy, you have one vote ever, and thats it. Revolverman (talk) 14:11, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * this is because, as i keep repeatedly saying, there is no good brexit deal to be had. there is no deal that does not leave britain worse off. there is no deal that will not result in the break up of the Uk. There are no trade deals that can be made where we are not negotiating from position of weakness and desperation. All that we hear about how great brexit will be is from partisan fucknuts and fantasists, and they offer nothing concrete beyond pipe dreams. at this stage anyone still for brexit is either an imbecile or an outright cunt. the two are not mutually exclusive. the uk will be no more soon. the damage we will do to ourselves will scar a generation. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:26, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * . — Oxyaena   Harass  14:52, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. I agree. Probably May's deal was the best that could be brokered. But it was (is) obviously flawed. But as a "good" Brexit result is unobtainable it's really all we have.
 * As for a second referendum being undemocratic I don't buy it. On various grounds.
 * 1. Nobody knew what they were voting for when the referendum was held. Nobody voted for "no deal" and, for that matter, nobody voted for May's deal. It seems abundantly democratic to ask people if what is being presented is what they really want.
 * 2. As I write these words it seems that Boris Johnson is going to be subject of a private criminal prosecution in respect of the lies he (and others) on the pro Brexit side told. If people voted based on what was clearly incorrect information I would seem reasonable to give them a second opportunity.  Especially given the wafer-thin margin of victory which leave achieved and the fact that the result could affect the UK for decades.Hubert (talk) 15:02, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I have still yet to hear what would be the Reminer's position should the UK vote to Leave for a second time.
 * As for this private prosecution case against Johnson I have this to say: It doesn't surpise me in the slightest that a Remainer would go out of their way to torpedo Johnson's leadership campaign, but it is massively concerning that a District Judge is entertaining this case. --RWRW (talk) 15:33, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It's really not up to the judge at this point as they have no choice but to hear the case, as legally anyone can bring a case of this sort against anyone. Private prosecutions are rather expensive though. 16:02, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If the majority of the country votes "no deal", or if the majority of the country votes "May's deal", then those things should happen. As it stands, the majority of the country three years ago voted "brexit" with no indication of what that actually meant, and the no-deal, May's deal, and Norway-Plusers have all taken that to mean that they have a mandate which they obviously just don't. Hannasanarion (talk) 16:17, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * its a bullshit question to begin with, as is RWRW response to boris being prosecuted (as if being a lying two faced racist shouldnt be enough to torpedo his chances). all i hear from RWRW is delusion and partisan dog shit, its all we ever hear from RWRW. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:07, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, to explicitly respond to RWRW's question: If a majority of the country voted for "no deal" or "May's deal" then pretty obviously that should be what happens. I also hope that, if the majority voted "remain" then people like RWRW would accept that result in the same manner.  Perhaps he could confirm his position? Hubert (talk) 19:29, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Another thing to note about the second referendum is how the Remainers plan on winning. They propose having 3 options on the ballot: 1) Remain 2) Hard Brexit (or no-deal)   3) Soft Brexit.  Essentially that will split the Leave vote nicely for them.
 * I guess it depends on what you mean by ‘accept’. The Lib Dems claim they have accepted the results of the last referendum. Certainly I’d feel cheated and bitter, but I can’t see myself protesting or anything. —RWRW (talk) 22:03, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually that does raise an interesting point. How to establish what the majority of the county actually wants? When the first referendum took place there was an imbalance in the question. On one side was "remain" and the other "leave".  Anyone voting "remain" knew exactly what they were voting for - but if someone voted "leave" they could imagine any possible future they wanted. A complete instant break, a customs union (or not), membership of the single market (or not) and a host of other possibilities.
 * In consequence, whatever deal was subsequently negotiated was almost certain to disappoint the majority of leave voters as it would not represent whatever it was the imagined they would get when they voted "leave". And in consequence all the problems that Theresa May has run into.
 * At this late stage we are left with only three options: no deal, May's deal or stay. It is entirely likely that many people would like something else entirely - like the golden land of the earlier Brexiteer promises where the UK got all the benefits of being in the EU with none of the costs or responsibilities. But it became evident during the negotiations that this was never going to be a runner and the EU have firmly taken further negotiations off the table.
 * So what would be best way to choose between the three we have? Single transferable vote or two referendums?Hubert (talk) 07:13, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Is it true that people "voting remain knew exactly what they were voting for"? The people in 1975 thought they knew what they were voting for, I suspect the result of that referendum would have been very different if it was known what Europe would look like in just 30 years. For all anyone knows the EU could be a complete super state in 30 years (something which most EU officials would secretly love).
 * Holding more referendums would do nothing but divide the country further, and its pretty amusing that the people supporting further votes are the same ones who claim to want to unite the country.--RWRW (talk) 01:22, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Hypothetically speaking, would it be possible to have a referendum to rejoin the EU after Brexit actually happens? 00:12, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure. But the UK would need to rejoin under standard terms without all the opt-outs it currently enjoys.  For example, it would probably have to join the euro and it would have to give up the rebate.  It would also need to be accepted back in by the rest of the countries - something which might not be guaranteed.Hubert (talk) 07:16, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * to be honest i care little for talk of referendums at this point. i dont see that a great deal has changed since the last one, no issues dealt with, i dont see much engagement with the parts of the uk that voted leave. all i see from MPs is hideous self interest- the shameless jockeying for tory leadership or the asinine fence sitting from labour in the hope of an general election. not one fucker is telling us what to expect when we leave, whatever deal we might have, not one fucker has any trade deals lined up, or is telling us what kind of hit we can expect to the economy, the effects on the nhs, or anything tangible and concrete. ive an inkling from various newspaper articles, but its all mostly opinion - few official reports, and nothing unbiased. no mp, no government minister is telling people what to expect, what we lose, what we gain, worse case scenarios, steps we can take to ease the transition. we should have had all this before the referendum, instead, we got lies, exaggerations, and point scoring, and thats all we are getting now. there wont be a deal, or a second referendum. we'll be kicked out with nothing before anything is agreed in parliament. at that point there will have to be some concensus, some action, something - it will be all we can do just to keep the lights on.
 * this is what brexit is about. its not just europe, its an opportunity to dismantle the state even further. look at who have been pushing for brexit, look at the things their views on how the country should be run, on rights, on services, on the nhs, everything. these are people who think that thatcher was a leftist. if you though austerity was bad now, just you wait and see what these cunts have in store for us. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:27, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

(reset) The original problem was that the government expected a 'middling-strong remain', could have done something with 'strong leave' but got a rough split between leave, remain, and 'whatever everybody else is having.'

If the UK government had said a week or so after the referendum - that 'We did not expect this result and there is no obvious road map for this response - but we will initially negotiate for something like the Norway option (with control of immigration) and go on from there' something could have been achieved - but they have given the impression for three years of 'not being able to organise the proverbial sitting in full barrels in a brewery.' Anna Livia (talk) 12:24, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I wonder, what good would it do NASA or astronomical agency covering up a Flat Earth
We all know the Earth is round but why would NASA waste time and money covering up this type of things. Hundreds of billions of dollars to make fake research papers, space probes, space stations and telescopes. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 13:11, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Darwinism and non-geocentric cosmologies apparently were created by Satan to challenge morality and the importance of the human race as God's chosen people, and usher in lawless anarchy. But it's hard to see a moral or philosophical consequence of the shape of the world. Unless you have a lot of globes to sell. -- Annanoon (talk) 17:15, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Especially given that there would be 'a lot of grants' in researching why the Earth is flat, sending probes to the bottom of the Earth, and researching ways of preventing large meteors or underground nuclear testing from piercing the teatray Earth and its surrounding mountains so all the air and water fall off the Earth. Anna Livia (talk) 19:29, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Presumably all the millions of people who have been to Antarctica over the years are in on the conspiracy as well, as are all pilots, sailors, cartographers, and GPS makers. — Oxyaena   Harass  20:06, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Guess that hundreds of thousands of kids with basic math knowledge and a telescope are part of the conspiracy too? Having some basic math knowledge and a telescope would prove a round Earth. That is a lot of people to off. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 20:30, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't forget all the 'astrologers, astronomers/other persons whether or not shepherds) watching the moon by night' from the ancient world to the present watching lunar eclipses.
 * Should this discussion be decanted to the Flat Earth talk page? Anna Livia (talk) 22:54, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The only "explanation" I heard from a believer of flat earth (not in person, on a youtube video) is that NASA profits from the lands beyond the Antarctica. My counterpoint is: In such a case, wouldn't have been better just to fake that there is a fall after Antarctica? That would require to fake just the pictures of the fall. Thinker(unlicensed) 07:42, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I guess on maps for the "land behind Antarctica" they put "here be dragons." :p — Oxyaena   Harass  08:10, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Many conspiracy theories fail on the "OK, but why?" question. I think that it one of the defining signs of the conspiracy theory that its proponents are unable to provide a consistent coherent explanation for the motivation behind the conspiracy.Hubert (talk) 14:49, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Remembering Carl Sagan
If only Sagan were around today to learn of the fascinating insights we have discovered since his untimely death. Since his death we have discovered more than 4,000 exoplanets, we have discovered numerous candidates for harboring extraterrestrial life in our solar system alone (*cough* Europa *cough*), coinciding with that we have discovered that numerous minor planetary bodies have oceans of liquid water inside them, with some (*cough* Europa *cough*) even possessing the right chemical mix for complex life to occur on them, not merely simple life, but complex life, I`d be willing to bet that there are fully fledged animals inside Europa's oceans.

Sagan would be amazed by what we have discovered since his death. He would be 83 years old today. The work he had done in popularizing science to the masses remains uncontested, he inspired millions of future scientists with his works, he was truly a gift from the gods. Rest in peace, Carl, you have earned it. — Oxyaena   Harass  23:10, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I remember when I was in church they had a sermon about him and how he was trying to get people to worship the devil. He died when I was still there, and they celebrated it as a passing of an era of satanic influence.  It was a sobering event though, because nothing he ever said could reasonably be construed as cruel or evil.  He just tried to warn people to take care of their planet, and just how fragile human existence is.  He was wrongfully maligned by many in life, and they have largely forgotten; but I have not.  Thank you Sagan for living a life devoid of hatred and full of care for others and their future.  If only people followed that influence, life would be far more secure and peaceful.  MirrorIrorriM (talk) 16:12, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm really depressed that people could hate Sagan just because he said fairly reasonable things. I can't imagine how people like you endure church especially when church can be so vicious like that. 19:01, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "Christianity is a religion of peace and love" my ass. — Oxyaena   Harass  19:26, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * What a bunch of assholes, not to say something worse. I remember to have cried when I knew of his death, just having taken from the library "A Pale Blue Dot".
 * One Carl Sagan is worth one thousand Fundy preachers. 195.235.239.101 (talk) 21:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sagan would probably have liked even more than Europa what the Cassini-Huygens mission found on the Saturnian system, especially Titan, given for example . Meanwhile premium assholes as Jack Chick, Jerry Falwell, and similar ones survived him. Panzerfaust (talk) 22:02, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I think comparing Carl Sagan to any amount of preachers is an insult to Sagan. A thousand Fundy preachers do nothing but harm to the world. 22:49, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Fundie Christians see Satan in everything. To them, God wants people to do nothing but sit around their houses all day watching Fox News and televangelists while making sure not to say bad words. Carl Sagan had the temerity to suggest that humanity was capable of doing and dreaming more. Therefore, they call him Satanic. Never forget that fundamentalist Christianity's primary goal is to intellectually limit people. 00:17, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

PROOF that RationalWiki is a LIBERAL HOAX
Ladies and gentlemen, I have come to EXPOSE RW for the fraudulent liberal propaganda that it is! Now, these so-called "RationalWikians" claim that the most superior species on the planet is the Goat. HOWEVER, if that's the case, then how come the word RAT is in their name Rat-ionalWiki???? I HAVE LITERALLY EXPOSED THE SLIMY UNDERBELLY OF THIS TANGLED WEB OF LIES THIS SITE HAS POLLUTED CHILDREN'S MINDS WITH!!!!!!!!! 03:23, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * An obvious, and somewhat classic, misinterpretation. It is true that we admire, revere, and even like the goat.  However, we also know that we cannot truly aspire to parity with that most blessed of ungulates.  We are not yet so swelled with hubris that we would name ourselves Goatwiki.
 * Rather, we look at the majority of the Web as it stands, and note that although the most of it seems to consist of conspiracy wonks, conspiracy wanks, recalcitrant tank(ie)s, Tom Hanks, ultra right-wing wingnuts, hyper left-wing moonbats, theoretically centrist but "holy flying shit the fuck is he thinking with that orgone crap" wunderkindleschmitten, Elon Musk, Tiger Mask, LGBTQTIA and doubtless a few letters I have forgotten but not B because no matter how liberal we may be we kinda draw the lines at fucking monkeys or pigs, biologists who think we came about by monkeys fucking pigs, Flat Earthers, Hollow Earthers, Earth-free earthers, and every concievable dietary fad ever-- oh, and homeopaths, somehow in the middle of it all we survive.
 * So do rats. Rats are great survivors, as are cockroaches.  And since we'd likely get in trouble for false advertising if we called ourselves Cockwiki, well... Kencolt (talk) 04:18, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * But think about all the poultry puns! Also, reminder that 🐓 is the closest living relative to the T Rex! Sure, we don't get to call out of touch clowns "dinosaurs" but it's not like "dinosaur", being alive and well today, is not a scientifically accurate insult by any stretch. 06:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * As far as poultry puns go... I choose to chicken out. Hell yes, I went there. Kencolt (talk) 07:14, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Duck and cover is the only response.Hubert (talk) 08:27, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Henny Penny/Chicken Little and 'the sky is falling' brings the thread back on-message. Anna Livia (talk) 09:06, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Rationalwiki is a hoax unsupported by an objective evidence or critical analysis of the facts as they are. Spreading baseless rumors about the existence of Rationalwiki are wrong, misleading, and counterproductive to the future of our great city-state. And finally, this statement stresses once and for all: Aliens do not exist. The 'surface world' does not exist. Rationalwiki is a mere figment of your imagination. Semipenultimate (talk) 15:06, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * But #you, Semidemihemipenultimate, are not part of my imagination.# And you are contributing to RW (what is the name of your city state btw?) Anna Livia (talk) 16:26, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * speaks fluent English, so if English is not his second language, meaning it is his first, said city state might just be Singapore given that people there tend to be native speakers of English. — Oxyaena   Harass  17:32, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Damn and blast! The jig is up! *hurls smoke bomb* *disappears* Semipenultimate (talk) 17:48, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't hate me just because I`m smart. — Oxyaena   Harass  17:54, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

(reset) There would also be Gibraltar, the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and a few others, and some of the 'micronations etc.' Anna Livia (talk) 18:34, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think the technical definition of "city state" covers those places, Hong Kong however does meet the technical criteria. — Oxyaena   Harass  19:14, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * All joking aside, it's a paraphrase of the last line delivered by the state media of Atlantis in the Cannon film "Alien From L.A." (MST3K S5E16). The Atlanteans are english-speaking human-identical space aliens who crashed their ship into a deep cave a thousand years ago and have built a police state around the belief that the outside world doesn't exist. Cue a human arriving in the form of 1992 Kathy Ireland. It would be a fun twist on the generation ship SF trope were it not so deeply, deeply stupid. Semipenultimate (talk) 21:42, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Why was the Antinatalism Page Deleted?
I understand if most of you disagree with it, but I think that enough intelligent and vetted people (Schopenhauer and Benatar to name a few) have talked about it for it to have it's own page. Not trying to convince or convert anyone but it seems like it has a place on this website. Just curious.
 * "It's". 05:49, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It looks like it was a stub. If you can destubify, then go for it. Bongolian (talk) 07:21, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * There is some overlap with the existing articles Childfree movement and Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (which each describe a particular anti-reproductive organisation/movement/campaign), but antinatalism is a broader category and an article seems a good idea. --Annanoon (talk) 09:49, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Your kind has no place here, natalist scum. — Oxyaena   Harass  10:26, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Splitter! Bongolian (talk) 19:42, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I bet 100 dead babies I can punt you right back to where you came from. — Oxyaena   Harass  00:54, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Interesting article
https://blockpublisher.com/pewdiepie-in-crypto-a-better-youtube-over-blockchain-is-on-its-way/ I found an article about the benefits of crypto to sites like YouTube. I thought it was an interesting read. 68.0.189.224 (talk) 18:23, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it's boring, just another puff piece about cryptocurrency. The only interesting thing about that is the truly impressive number of ads for internal reinforcement. 03:05, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

RussionalWiki (again)
Given that Herr Fritz is really the only editor keeping Russional Wiki alive (barring my occasional drop-ins), do we have any other Russian speaking users who can be of service? — Oxyaena   Harass  20:44, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Doesn't Dysk speak Russian? Tinribmancer (talk) 10:30, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * да 10:52, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Mario Maker 2 Hype
No Multiplayer with Friends be damned! This game looks so exciting and I legit can't wait to pick it up. As an avid fan of the original all the new additions as well as the 3D World theme really fascinate me and I look forward to playing around with them. The ON/OFF switches especially, youtubers have already made some complex machines using the limited toolset in SMM1, so adding literal on/off switches that can control block states as well as rails is a WHOLE 'nother can of worms. Although, I can't help but feel like that new Angry Sun design is.... staring into my soul..... . 01:29, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * There are several Mario-related wikis - of which RW is not one. Anna Livia (talk) 11:14, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That hasn't stopped me or Lefty before, has it? :V 13:41, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure after it comes out, I'll share some shitty level codes, okay? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:47, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * As Mario is a plumber and RW explores 'the tubes of the internet' there is a tenuous connection.
 * What would the RW equivalent(s) of Mario be - and would a goatee beard be involved? Anna Livia (talk) 15:58, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * C'mon, you guys had a discussion on tangential media too. For Mario Maker 2, eh, I'm not all that hyped for it. I've had more fun with fan-made level makers than with this one though this does have its advantages. The new Angry Sun is kinda offputting, even scarier than the original, but at least it's not just a sun with a face now.
 * RationalWiki equivalent of Mario would be me. :) There aren't much Marios going into pseudoscience and debunking them. 19:59, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

CreationWiki
How true is this claim: "The contributor who nominated the article for deletion was a staunch anticreationist, who had vandalized the article several times"[] &mdash; Unsigned, by: 2600:1:F188:A0CB:DF48:792:D94F:68E6 / talk
 * And we are meant to care about this why? 03:21, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * In the case of the specific quote, Raymont and co. may be telling the truth (with spin) or they may be lying. It's difficult to tell. However, after reading their article on Wikipedia I've come to the conclusion that CreationWiki is not a useful source of information. Due to their NPOV, Wikipedia has been known to bend over backwards to be "fair" on certain subjects, many of which can only be honestly portrayed in an unfair light. Hence my dislike for their NPOV. It is my assessment that CreationWiki's article on Wikipedia is dishonest, whiny, and blatantly misrepresents Wikipedia as a whole. 03:50, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * CreationWiki - just another irrelevant dead website RW has articles on. — Oxyaena   Harass  05:55, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * So wikipedia doesn't like their non-scientific POV. It is not surprising that their views can't get airtime there and it is equally unsurprising that they imagine this is evidence of a conspiracy against them. I also question why we are supposed to care.Hubert (talk) 14:41, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Confederalism
Is this good or bad? Or does this depend on who wants Confederalism? Tinribmancer (talk) 10:32, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The United States was once a confederation, needless to say it turned out badly. — Oxyaena   Harass  11:14, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * United States aside, I think the important question comes down to why the individual states need to retain control. Hundreds of years ago it was impractical to rule large territory with a single seat of power due to  slow communication speeds and retaliation speeds of a military.  Today it is much easier to rule massive landmasses from a central seat of power.  One reason you may want to have a modern confederacy is if there is a major cultural difference that prevents people from acting in each other's best interest (although I would argue that you are going to run into problems working together anyways).  If you just want more versatility in lawmaking but don't want to be responsible for your own military, then a confederacy is an attractive option.  I think a confederacy is likely to be a temporary arrangement whenever one is formed.  My reasoning is that if the groups work well together they will like each other; ergo mergers can be expected.  If they do not work well together, they will likely be at odds politically and a breakup can be expected.  MirrorIrorriM (talk) 13:10, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Well the EU is arguably a confederacy, and it's starting to collapse under its own weight, so..... — Oxyaena   Harass  14:50, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Either way people are unhappy. People complain if they're asked to do what the distant central power tells them, but if you devolve power and let individual regions choose their own priorities, people complain it's unfair. The ideal of devolved power is that people living in the mountains get free skis and people living by the coast get free yachts, but there's always someone who lives up a hill but wants the government to give them a boat. --Annanoon (talk) 15:29, 29 May 2019 (UTC)