RationalWiki:Saloon bar

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Saloon bar
WIGO Bar colour.png

Welcome BoN
This is a place for general chit-chat about virtually anything that doesn't fit anywhere else.
Guinnesssmiley.gif For previous conversations see the automagic barchives. Beer.gif

What is going on?

The Bar
(talk) (talk) (talk) (talk) (hic)

To do list

Competition: Satirize Alternative Medicine[edit]

I'm back and the monthly writing competitions are back baby!

As a general guideline, the satire shouldn't be mistaken as a poe. Make up a detox or testimony or new healing craft or something!


submissions are over has already ended. (refresh)

β€”ClickerClockπŸ’Ύ talk.txt 11:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)


Essay:Poison is the best Medicine β€”ClickerClockπŸ’Ύ talk.txt 13:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Fun:Cure for Rabies --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:55, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Essay:This New Weight Loss Pill Will MELT Fat Away!!! β€”DuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 16:06, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Essay:Alternative weaponry --An ordinary human man (talk) 13:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


The real satire[edit]

Is the corpses we made along the way. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:05, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

LOL I heard a joke on the radio today. Time is the best teacher, but it kills all its star students. 10:08, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Deport Neo Nazis first. Illegal immigrants can wait.[edit]

While immigration laws are necessary, illegal immigrants seem less of a threat compared to Neo Nazis. But immigration laws should be straight forward and not based on a bureaucratic nightmare. I say this after seeing the totally rational and intelligent posts Rationaldriver made recently. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:02, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Believe it or not, neo-Nazis have rights (as do undocumented immigrants). Go ask the ACLU if you don't believe me. Bongolian (talk) 00:20, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
I am 100% aware of that. Just making fun of Neo Nazis. The supreme court case Village of Skokie vs. The National Socialist White People's Party cemented that. Nothing wrong with telling a Neo Nazi to shut up. Plus, it is good to beat racism with education. Education is the worst enemy of racism. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:33, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
I had a friend who became radicalized by far right propoganda. I always tried to be a good friend to him since I knew he was lonely because of how much of an ass he was to people. He had a very abusive father, so I figured that was the cause. Thing is, no amount of information I gave him could overcome his own insane confirmation biases. He could always write it off as 'jewish meddling of data'. Education isn't enough when people choose to ignore it. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 15:42, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
On the other hand, and I want you to consider this one carefully, nazis belong in holes in the ground. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 03:00, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
You can always go the Holocaust route, except this time it's in reverse. β€” Ζ‰ΓΈn Δ΄uan Harass 10:34, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Necromancy? 2A02:C7D:1635:5C00:9E2:3B47:D026:B241 (talk) 14:06, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

@Rationalzombie94 "illegal immigrants seem less of a threat compared to Neo Nazis." This kind of claims have no meaning if you do not specify what kind of threat are you considering (acts of violence? Number of homicides? Government overthrow? ...) and what data support your claim. Thinker(unlicensed) 15:52, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

"illegal immigrants seem less of a threat compared to Neo Nazis." Implies that illegal immigrant ARE a threat. You might mean to say something RationalZombie, but you certainly seem unable to write it. Resulting in a phrase that is certainly bordering on weasel words. We shall put it in better context, all the way from popular culture in 1982, Jello Biafra in fine fettle as he calmly issues the immortal refrain, Nazi Punks, Fuck Off!!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTs_Q4hEqmA Cardinal Chang (talk) 11:49, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
"And you wonder why we call Antifa fascists." What the hell are you on about? You clearly have no understanding of what either antifa or fascism are about. And less of the broad stroke descriptions of groups of people. You sure did pick a winner of a user name there, nobs. Cardinal Chang (talk) 10:04, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
What nonsense. Site rules prevent me from wording a suitable response, so I shall merely cite Irvine Welsh's description of Jordan Peterson https://twitter.com/irvinewelsh/status/1074958433177214981?lang=en Cardinal Chang (talk) 11:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Rewording what I meant[edit]

I originally intended it as a joke. Deport Neo Nazis to the bowels of Hell. By threat, I meant that illegal immigrants are hardly a threat; rarely a drug cartel might sneak in but that is minimal. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:53, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Considering that you can't read, I said minimal threat. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:11, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Like Judeo-Bolsheviks aren't more of a threat. (talk) 20:26, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

have you ever had a word or a phrase that is just fun to say[edit]

recently I've been saying "El-ahrairah" (the name of the rabbit god from "Watership Down") bc it's a rly fun name to say and has an interesting vocal pattern and makes me happy and giggle and flap my hands

anyway does anyone else have fun words or phrases to say or, for that matter, notice and get excited over how certain words sound when you say them? Transbeeism (talk) 01:50, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I used to do the same with "Meester Pigvig." And now I'll probably be doing it again for the next couple weeks. --Mabian (talk) 02:20, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Mine has always been 'Fuck Everything'. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 12:58, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
'shenanigans' is my favourite word.--RWRW (talk) 13:15, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

< Fuck Everything >

     \                _
      \              (_)
       \   ^__^       / \
        \  (oo)\_____/_\ \
           (__)\       ) /
               ||----w ((
               ||     ||>>

β€” Dysklyver 13:24, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

"Fuck morality!" "For Fuck's sake!" "Oh my gods and Goddesses fucking anally and orally above and below!" (That last one is the full version of "Oh my gods" for me.) ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:43, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
"Mushroom Kingdom". I also like the word "klaxxon". I also make up some nonsense like "zΓΌbΓ©dΓΌbeka", "cedoolie", "foof", "poogue" and "derfs". --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 19:15, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Nani?King RimuruRimuru Slime.png 23:16, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Thoughts on Thomas Nagel's Mind and Cosmos?[edit]

Title is kinda self-explanatory. L'homme IdΓ©al (je rigole). 21:34, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Until I went to the amazon page and saw the subtitle, I had hopes there was something to this. But "why the materialist neodarwinian conception of nature is almost certainly false" is a pretty high-tier bullshit thesis. Rather than give money to some fundie, I'll see if I can't find some excerpts to analyze...(okay you're just going to have to imagine that there's a break here where I actually did this)

I believe the defenders of intelligent design deserve our gratitude for challenging a scientific world view that owes some of the passion displayed by its adherents precisely to the fact that it is thought to liberate us from religion

We are off to a thrilling start, courtesy of goodreads. Just look at this shit. Intelligent design as a good example of taking it to the materialists, instead of terrible, badly done materialism with a deity injected for no reason.

I am drawn to a fourth alternative, natural teleology, or teleological bias, as an account of the existence of the biological possibilities on which natural selection can operate. I believe that teleology is a naturalistic alternative that is distinct from all three of the other candidate explanations: chance, creationism, and directionless physical law. To avoid the mistake that White finds in the hypothesis of nonintentional bias, teleology would have to be restrictive in what it makes likely, but without depending on intentions or motives. This would probably have to involve some conception of an increase in value through the expanded possibilities provided by the higher forms of organization toward which nature tends: not just any outcome could qualify as a telos. That would make value an explanatory end, but not one that is realized through the purposes or intentions of an agent. Teleology means that in addition to physical law of the familiar kind, there are other laws of nature that are "biased toward the marvelous".

And yep, they're a fundie creationist who wants to not be called a creationist. This is philosophobabble. "Not just any outcome could qualify as Telos" Let's not take time to identify some falsifiable definition of our valid subset of outcomes we assign purpose to. Just be certain, dear reader, that you are in a universe that meets that criteria, and some different one, different in a very nonspecific way, wouldn't have Telos and could be deemed natural. Don't worry about it. It's okay. Just an intelligent designer with unspecified purpose, that we're inferring is present through my genius intuition.
It's intelligent design. Again. The exact same watchmaker bullshit, but this one does it with pseudophilosophy instead of pseudoscience. Whoop de fucking do. On to another quote.

In every area of thought we must rely ultimately on our judgments, tested by reflection, subject to correction by the counterarguments of others, modified by the imagination and by comparison with alternatives.

But whatever you do, definitely don't use any kind of observational evidence or empirical methodology. You might decide that duplicating nucleic acids are affected by random copy errors that suggest a source of informational entropy could be selected for without Jesus. Or that cosmological background radiation is consistent with a hot quark soup, or that stars and planets form in predictable patterns according to some "laws" of "physics".

Humans are addicted to the hope for a final reckoning, but intellectual humility requires that we resist the temptation to assume that tools of the kind we now have are in principle sufficient to understand the universe as a whole.

Science has been wrong before the book!

My target is a comprehensive, speculative world picture that is reached by extrapolation from some of the discoveries of biology, chemistry, and physics--a particular naturalistic Weltanschauung that postulates a hierarchical relation among the subjects of those sciences, and the completeness in principle of an explanation of everything in the universe through their unification. Such a world view is not a necessary condition of the practice of any of those sciences, and its acceptance or nonacceptance would have no effect on most scientific research.

Don't ask me to show an example of a process not moderated by the laws of physics though. The universality of their applicability so far shouldn't cause you to assume a worldview where that's true. God what a crazy idea, not finding a single exception to a rule after a century of trying, then thinking it might be almost entirely right. Crazy.

The place at which the contrast between forms of intelligibility is most vividly presented is in the understanding of ourselves.

Allow me to refer to my favorite paper for this one sentence.

It would be an advance if the secular theoretical establishment, and the contemporary enlightened culture which it dominates, could wean itself of the materialism and Darwinism of the gaps

Buddy you could have just said "I don't know what darwinism means"
Alright, I'm tired of playing right now, but plenty more quotes of similar quality here. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 22:04, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
I worry that you fall prey to the genetic fallacy often. Anyway, I'd hardly call something published by OUP the work of a fundie. But thanks for your thoughts. I have been known to impulse buy books 22:47, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
You're the one explicitly making the argument that the publisher of a work defines its quality while simultaneously suggesting I fall prey to the genetic fallacy. I don't really know how to respond to that. Do you know what the genetic fallacy is? Do you really??? Because arguing it's fundie bullshit because its opening position celebrates fundie bullshit is... uh... not that. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 05:51, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
While I believe in intelligent design to some degree (not going to argue about it), evolution has rock solid evidence that cannot be ignored. Questioning a theory is perfectly fine, but the brain dead creationists twist questioning a theory to fit their anti-science agenda. I am not the type of guy to push intelligent design into schools. It would result in the strict teaching of Christian creationism and outright ignore evolution. Keep religion out of school --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:40, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
What surprises me the most about this thread is that we appear to have no idea who Thomas Nagel is or what this book is actually about. Decidedly not a sock of User:Fareeha_A 01:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Fuck off. Don't ask me to try give an opinion about something, and when I look into it, find it has problems, declare me to "not know anything". ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 05:51, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I looked at the quotes ikanreed put out and it reads to me like New Age babble. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 05:57, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

He's a philosopher, so sure. It is my opinion though that on these questions, philosophy has kind of reached a dead end, whereas the neurosciences are discovering more and more every day. We still don't know a lot about the brain, but we are learning -- at this point, I think we know enough IMHO that a 100% rejection of a neurochemical view of mind and consciousness doesn't make sense, either. ("Materialism" seems like a simpler concept than neuroscience per the Wiki on it so maybe a push back on that particular area makes sense). I will also add that genetic / evolutionary algorithms are an interesting (if more experimental) area of artificial intelligence, and IMHO in some cases are a pretty clear demonstration how something "intelligent" can emerge from mere evolutionary processes (a process I'll add that, even in the narrow genetic algorithm scope, sometimes leaves programmers baffled to exactly how the solution works) Soundwave106 (talk) 15:40, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, does it confound abiogenesis with evolution, claims "evolutionism" is a pseudoscience rejected by most scientists, and spews out the same PRATTs about complex organics being impossible to form (argument of probability)?. Panzerfaust (talk) 14:28, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
To be fair, the watchmaker argument isn't actually central to the book, just done as a throwaway justification to other, more subtly bad ideas. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
In order, no, no, yes. At least in the introduction he pointedly avoids the first two things but does the third under the pretenses that intelligent design's jaqqing off revealed real problems. This is not a claim he actually substantiates anywhere. Oh no, he just pretends Behe had good points about "irreducible complexity" hidden under the mistake of being religious.
One more quote from goodreads for me to hate

If we continue to assume that we are parts of the physical world and that the evolutionary process that brought us into existence is part of its history, then something must be added to the physical conception of the natural order that allows us to explain how it can give rise to organisms that are more than physical. The resources of physical science are not adequate for this purpose, because those resources were developed to account for data of a completely different kind

This is just nitpicking difference his stupid dualistic worldview has with reams of evidence and declaring the evidence wrong. He's a creationist, but only for qualia. It's dumb. Guys like this are why dualism delenda est. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
@Ikanreed Kill me now, death is a mercy compared to this Creationist magnum opis. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:39, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

(reset) The real universe exists, and there are explanations that make sense (for now) that explain much of it (and explanations for other bits will be developed). Evolution exists (at least on Earth) and there are explanations for significant parts of it (with at least some of 'the issues' involving how certain aspects start off), especially if one accepts that "there are many, many generations involved and the law of unexpected consequences and the 'law of information later considered essential not being recorded' apply)" and all the rest of it.

However there is 'the sense of being a person/having an identity - and that other persons and at least some animals possess the same (and there is no accounting for other people's bad taste/lack of judgement)' and the idea possessed by many diverse cultures that 'deity or deities exist' (and do more than just provide an explanation for the way the world behaves and crops fail etc); and the senses of wonder and humour, and that 'there is more to Heaven and Earth than in a purely scientific philosophy.'

There are those who feel that their religious-ethical-philosophical beliefs add to the way in which they observe and operate in the world, encourages them to make the right decision, improve things and also others, and are willing to engage with other viewpoints (and walk in each other's shoes), and then there are those who stick to the worldview imposed on them and wish to inflict it upon others whether wanted or not, who are the problem (and who are often the subjects of RW articles). Anna Livia (talk) 15:05, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Sure. There is value in subjective observation and interpretation for navigating a human life. But that's clearly not the case he's making. He's positioning that methodological empiricism comes to false or wrong conclusions about the things its the best equipped method to interpret, simply on virtue of conflicting with his intuitions. It's nuts. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:34, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
@Ikanreed. Then it's not so bad as a Fundy who I picked up who after being angry at the desires of UK scientists to forbid the teaching of creationism at schools confounded evolution with abiogenesis, claimed that "evolutionism" was a pseudoscience that most scientists no longer support, and that abiogenesis is impossible due to the sheer improbability of forming complex organic molecules. This combined with Hawking/Dawkins having claimed creationism to be real, evolutionim = no morality = no belief in a personal God first and in a creator God later, replaced with "billions of casualties", citing Pasteur as this shown spontaneus generation is impossible, and more PRATTs like the "perfect" structure of the eye and the mess in the fossil sequence caused by the Flood, and evolution being bollocks due to frauds as the man of Piltdown (you get the idea, I'll not waste electrons)
The best was when he began to talk about a gene that causes people to believe in God, mixing it with NWO BS and the Book of Revelation, ending inviting people to accept Jesus (etc). The very best was that only at the end the asshole admitted not to have scientific formation at all. Panzerfaust (talk) 00:00, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Face facts: science sucks (there, I alliterated.) Before science there was the poet. In the beginning was the Word. All things were made by him (the Word; maybe this War on Pronouns can bring some people to the Light). nobs piss in my ear 03:57, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
The best nobs interactions are the ones where you can't even tell what he's trying to say. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 04:14, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
As I said before in all seriousness and with actual concern, Nobs should seek mental health care. SchizophasiaWikipedia's W.svg (word salad) could be a symptom of different mental illnesses. Bongolian (talk) 04:41, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
You wanna know where did we come from and why do we exist? That's easy. The poet spoke the world into existence. Read WP's poetry entry, it's very good (I could do better). Better still, check out PoiesisWikipedia's W.svg, "the activity in which a person brings something into being that did not exist before." The poet created the world. Science is just observation, and chasing after wind. A rock laying on the sea shore would still exist with or without the scientist, yet they can't figure out the poet created it.
Take rappers, for example. They're not just entertainers, they are creating a whole new world. You wanna fix global warming? Science can't do it, but the poet can. nobs piss in my ear 11:55, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
@RobSmith That makes no sense. Science is the only solution to global warming, poets can't create green energy, they can't warn us about the temp rise science can.

Science 2.0 is a MASSIVE joke still[edit]

You're a bad troll. Get the Hell out. Guffer (talk) 02:33, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Is User:Guffer Logicnsuch?[edit]

@GrammarCommie, @Don Juan, @LeftyGreenMario, and @Dysklyver,

Take note of the style of the statements on these user pages and at the top of their talk pages.

And now we have:

Other behavior:

  • Having very enlightened political views
β€œβ€This is the best idea I can think of that's more creative than just voting against Trump. All the members of the caravan go to a Trump rally, insisting that they're ardent supporters of Trump. Then, they all sit right behind his podium, and at a predetermined time, all of them jump at once on top of him, 100,000 or so Hispanic migrants in unison, they just leap as one big heap onto him, and they don't hit him or kick him or anything, they just get on top of him and lie down, and he can't do anything until they get off of him, and the Secret Service isn't able to dig him out.
β€”Guffer in the Saloon bar
β€œβ€This is how it works: if two nations choose to engage in a squabble because their Political Ideologies are too different, and compromise or peace is unattainable, then the two nations are given a fair and just trial, much like a Public trial. a Committee of 25 delegates from 25 randomly selected countries are invited to attend, and decide who wins. The Countries are given a simple set of questions, mainly questions dealing with poverty levels, gun laws, rate of human suffering, prison population, environmental status, yearly death rate, Leadership system, etc. The 25 countries then vote on which country is superior to the other based on the simple criteria above.
β€”Logicnsuch's Essay:Sequeira War Alternative
  • Edit-warring
One, two. The content inserted was as intelligent as ever.
β€œβ€On January 14, Trump ordered an entire table of fast food for the Clemson Tigers. The incident sparked extreme outrage and laughs, particularly from the fact that Trump referred to hamburgers as "Hamberders" in classic tweet fashion. The incident also confirmed suspicions that Trump has no taste in food.
β€”Guffer vandalizing the article on Donald Trump
  • General silliness
"I have a strange vision." Indeed, stranger than @Machina's existential fluff.
β€œβ€I have a strange idea. It's the music video for Thriller, except instead of Michael Jackson, it's Hitler, and instead of Ola Ray, it's Eva Braun. Why do I see this? What does it mean? Is it a good idea, or is it stupid?
β€”Guffer, 01:35, 18 January 2019
  • Sustained interest in highly relevant YouTube channels like "Science 2.0"
Guffer removed the above {{collapse}} ... {{collapse end}} templates to attract attention.
  • Feigning anger by calling Fiddleit a troll after Fiddleit was blocked
Guffer, 23:32, 17 January 2019: Yeah right you stupid troll. Go urinate somewhere else.
Guffer, 02:33, 18 January 2019: You're a bad troll. Get the Hell out.
Compare this with Fiddleit feigning ignorance after Willthenut was blocked.
Fiddleit, 21:43, 3 January 2019: What's this all about? A troll? (talk) 10:02, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Probably Guffer is Logicnsuch, but there no real harm in leaving him a bit longer just in case he isn't. β€” Dysklyver 10:58, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
No idea. All I know is, you guys oughta quit being so paranoid. Guffer (talk) 18:16, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Sixteen Tons[edit]

Sadly still relevant to this day. β€” Ζ‰ΓΈn Δ΄uan Harass 20:16, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
The Federal government currently has 3 different lawsuits against it by federal workers who are not being paid, including 1 lawsuit by workers forced to work without pay that cites the Thirteenth Amendment ("involuntary servitude"), the anti-slavery amendment. So much for "dignity of the paycheck" Republicans. Bongolian (talk) 00:08, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Meanwhile the fucks in the White House and Congress get six digit salaries while the backbone of the federal government are left to rot in debt. β€” Ζ‰ΓΈn Δ΄uan Harass 14:55, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Anti-vaxxers now a top threat to global health[edit]

That's how bad this shit has gotten. π”Šπ”¬π”žπ”±-π”ˆπ”ͺ𝔭𝔒𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔀𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔑𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔑𝔬π”ͺ/π”žπ” π”₯𝔦𝔒𝔳𝔒π”ͺ𝔒𝔫𝔱𝔰) 14:23, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

To be honest, I thought we'd turned the corner on anti-vax, but that report says 2018 was a record year for refusal and hesitancy. So all that has happened is I'm not personally being exposed to the nutters anymore. Fuck. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:45, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
This whole thing is why I believe we need to take some sort of legitimate action. If you don't vaccinate your kids, even for religious reasons, they should be taken away. You are refusing them medical care, putting them and others in danger. It's really textbook child abuse.An ordinary human man (talk) 16:59, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Allowing your children to come to harm through failure to act is textbook neglect, not abuse. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:01, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
To what extent is the problem - there comes a point at which many people have not come across persons who have been seriously/negatively affected by 'the once usual childhood diseases? Anna Livia (talk) 17:33, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Jennymccarthybodycount stopped updating in 2015, sadly. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:05, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
That's interesting because the WHO has also recently promoted anti-science with herbal medicine,[1] and herbal medicine has been treated as a vaccination alternative by some.[2] WHO has even promoted the deadly Aristolochia in Ayurvedic medicine as recently as 2010.[3] Are these two branches of WHO with conflicting strategies, or a case of institutional cognitive dissonance? Bongolian (talk) 20:36, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Maybe it's a problem with some particular people on the board, because this reminds me of how EPA used to be nice and dandy but Trump appointed some brain parasites and now it's acting like it's been infected by such. Anyhow, this is part of the ongoing development of integrative medicine creeping into mainstream medicine like kudzu plants, as we've seen with a lot of major health departments starting to promote the practices or even sell the damn things. As for World Health Organization, it's been going on for a little while.[4] As for LeftyGreenMario, it makes me want to vomit. Alternative medicine, integrative medicine, complementary medicine, whatever, they have only one place and that's deep in a landfill. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 22:58, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Is my comment being replied to, or are there tangled threads? Most of us will never encounter someone affected by polio (FDR is 'a historic person'), see even a smallpox vaccination scar (unless in 'particular medical or archaeological environments) etc, or will have the attitude 'unless you are visiting places where specific diseases are rife, you will not come into contact with anything nasty' - apart from the winter flu jab (if appropriate). Anna Livia (talk) 12:44, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

β”Œβ”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”˜ Sucks about this insular anti-vax community suddenly having an outbreak of an otherwise mostly eradicated disease ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


Gillette decided to lecture their customers about "toxic masculinity" Thinker(unlicensed) 17:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Video not particularly noteworthy; corporations asserting conventional moral positions for the time as a way of creating a false sense of respect has been incredibly common for decades now. Everyone angry about it is somehow simultaneous with eachother the dumbest fucker possible. Yes I mean you. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:26, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
You are a moron. Everyone who is losing their crap over this commercial is a fucking moron. This whole "controversy" is as stupid and overhyped as the time Starbucks used plain red cups. This is a fucking non-issue. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:31, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Gotta love the science behind it. Naturally generated testosterone produces anti-social behavior. Hey, come to think of it, isn't this related the Rationalwiki's Mission Statement? Bet a $100 no RW editor will pursue it, and I can't cause I'll get blocked. And some stupid fuck just put in my bio that I'm not committed to RW's Mission. nobs piss in my ear 04:37, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
To me it's funny how conservative culture, a culture that supposedly glorifies past values, often seems to ignore that old school concept of "being a gentleman". Just saying. Soundwave106 (talk) 15:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Of course right-wing fundies will take message such as "bullying and rape are bad" as an attack on masculinity. Oh, and toxic masculinity doesn't mean "males are toxic". Diacelium, but without an account (talk) 17:39, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
At this point I wonder if these kinds of misunderstandings are them being that dumb, or whether they purposefully choose not to understand what very modestly left ideas mean. I put it on Fun:Predictions as a joke but maybe I should take it more seriously as a prediction, "By the year 2168(2169 at the latest), the English language will have split, not on physical boundaries but ideology, and no one will understand anything said by people they disagree with." ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:02, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
As someone who was raised right-wing, I can say yes; they are that dumb and often just misunderstanding it. Problem is, they stubbornly insist that they know what they 'really want', and often stray into the camp of the willfully ignorant. They are masters at ignoring anything anyone not on their side says. If you present yourself as rightwing, they will listen to you and even agree with you. Say you are left wing, and they instantly change their views 180 because they are indoctrinated into reflexively rejecting anything of the 'left'. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 18:19, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Best moments:

  • A tv show with a white man grabbing the bottom of a black housekeeper and making fun of her in front of a laughing audience, because that's a real thing.
  • A man boss mansplaining to a woman employee and a close-up of her suffering, because bosses notoriously don't have the last word in a meeting.
  • Two dads not caring about their children fighting in the garden, because overprotective parents are not something from these days.
  • Ana Kasparian!
  • Random middle east man saving poor girl from fat white man telling her "smile, sweetie!"
  • Random black man stopping a white man to commit what probably would be a daylight street rape.
  • The most tenacious bullies ever.
  • Black guy making peace between young black boy without hood and young black boys with hoods.

LOL Thinker(unlicensed) 19:18, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

You know how I said you were the dumbest fucker possible? Stop being the dumbest fucker possible, please. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:24, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
"You know how I said you were the dumbest fucker possible?" Keep saying it, if it makes you feel better. I have already replied: "What's the purpose of this kind of comments? They don't offend me, and they make you look like you have no arguments." Thinker(unlicensed) 21:54, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
You see the idiot in the red hat? Yeah, that's what you sound like right now. You don't like the commercial? DON'T BUY THE MOTHERFUCVKING PRODUCT YOU CUNTLICKER!!! That's how fucking capitalism, or really any economy works. Companies market to the majority, and currently the majority is a bunch of people that want social progress. Give right-wingers enough time and they'll play 1950s style ads again. Why? Because the company DOESN'T GIVE FUCK ABOUT ANYTHING OUTSIDE OF PROFITS!!! HOW MANY FUCKING TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY THIS BEFORE YOU DIPSHITS GET IT?!?!?! THEY. DO. NOT. CARE. ABOUT. ANYTHING. OTHER. THAN. MONEY!!! OK? OK!!! Stop talking like an idiot now. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:16, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
You know, that's a whole lot of being the dumbest fucker possible, and not much stopping being the dumbest fucker possible. I asked so politely. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 22:18, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Calm down guys, please. You can keep your arguments, but tone down a notch on insulting ("cuntlicker", really!?) and the all-caps. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 22:46, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie "You don't like the commercial? DON'T BUY THE MOTHERFUCVKING PRODUCT YOU CUNTLICKER!!!"
Who said I don't like the commercial? I think it's hilarious! That's why I made a list of "Best moments". Of course I have my criticisms of the message and especially how it's been delivered, but that's not gonna make me all caps-insane like someone else... Thinker(unlicensed) 08:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm just a BoN, but GrammarCommie, but "You don't like the commercial? DON'T BUY THE MOTHERFUCVKING PRODUCT" would also apply to a bunch of ads for alternative medecine products RW do have a page for on this wiki. This ad clearly base itself in an ideology, some people have reserves with the ideology it spreads, regardless of their intention to buy the product or not. Usually RW is those people. (talk) 08:36, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
@UnlicensedThinker Let me put this in terms you'll understand. Gillette is a bunch of Mercenaries. That means they'll fly whichever flag makes them the most money this week. So when you bash that commercial, all you're doing is spreading the memetic word virus that is their media campaign and selling their products for them. That would be why I called you an idiot right out of the gate. That would be why I lost my temper after you went "The commercial said this!! Yuk yuk!!" There is only so many times you can completely miss the point before I lose my temper. The content of the commercial is ultimately irrelevant next to the larger problem of corporations dictating ideologies for profit. To put it more blunt terms, as well as an argumentum ad absurdem, they would air a commercial showing someone whipping a child with a (Gillette) razor studded bullwhip if their charts and analysts said that what people liked. This is nothing more than a (successful) media campaign designed to psychologically manipulate people into repeating the brand name ad nausem, thus increasing the chance that someone will buy their product. Congrats on falling for it. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:39, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie"Let me put this in terms you'll understand."
That's not the best way to start a conversation
"So when you bash that commercial, all you're doing is spreading the memetic word virus that is their media campaign and selling their products for them."
Even assuming that's true: So what? I don't care how many Gillette's are sold. (Or maybe I secretly work for Gillette... Mua haha haha...)
"after you went "The commercial said this!! Yuk yuk!!""
I never said that, it's not even a paraphrase.
"There is only so many times you can completely miss the point before I lose my temper."
That's your problem. Pull yourself together and stop losing your temper because of strangers on the Internet.
"The content of the commercial is ultimately irrelevant next to the larger problem of corporations dictating ideologies for profit."
Which is in turn irrelevant next to the larger problem of the heat death of the universe. See? I can play this game too!
"they would air a commercial showing someone whipping a child with a (Gillette) razor studded bullwhip if their charts and analysts said that what people liked."
...and people should say nothing about that?
"This is nothing more than a (successful) media campaign designed to psychologically manipulate people into repeating the brand name ad nausem, thus increasing the chance that someone will buy their product. Congrats on falling for it."
Thanks. I had fun for free, I wish media campaign was always this way!
Ah you forgot to reply to the noteworthy objection of to you screaming "DON'T BUY THE MOTHERFUCVKING PRODUCT". Thinker(unlicensed) 14:42, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Fuck this shit and fuck your concern trolling. I'm fucking done with this shit. I'm gone. Believe whatever delusion make you happy, ignore corporate greed undermining any value behind ideas. Whatever, I don't fucking care anymore. You don't like social progress, big woop. Social progress is the reason you can bitch about social progress via this thing called technology. Tone police someone else, I'm out. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 15:54, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Backtracking somewhat - a case of it never being too early in the year to start fighting the war against the war against Christmas.

If 'the companies' promote peace and cooperation across borders/between communities and reduced tariff barriers because it is good for their business what is there to object?

And - adverts can backfire (no citations needed) - sometimes simply because 'they are all over the place and that annoys people.' Anna Livia (talk) 15:16, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

BoN: The key difference is that while Gilette engaged in a publicity stunt, those alternative medicine we talk about can scam people and dupe them and ultimately harm them, and they remain relevant far beyond publicity stunts, very unlike memes like this one. I just dont see value in documenting what the latest outrage is about compared to documenting ongoing alternative medicine. Remember, alternative medicine has snuck into otherwise science based organizations such as WHO and hospitals and academia. Alt med promoters are con artists and hide behind a sheet of legitimatacy while Gilette just likes publicity. Anyhow, that's the difference in how the "don't like x, don't engage in it" should be applied. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 19:07, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I am lukewarm to social justice and I think that getting mad over this commercial is a waste of everyone's time. Commie Lib (talk) 20:53, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Best non-violent way to stop Trump (Besides just not voting for him)[edit]

Psychopathology of Adolf Hitler[edit]

I know a psychiatric diagnosis for a dead guy would be damn near impossible but what psychiatric disorder do you think Hitler had? I do know many psychiatrists have done research into the subject.

This does not absolve Hitler of his actions --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:10, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

This kind of discussion is a very, very bad idea. Mental health diagnoses are already heavily stigmatized. Neuro-typical people are capable of terrible things, period, we don't need to play games of attaching disorders (that many good people have too) to them to categorize them as part of the handicapped. It's way too easy to go "Hitler was evil but at least he's not one of US and only one of THOSE people". No. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 01:58, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
The whole "this horrible person was <insert mental illness>" thing basically pins people with <insert mental illness> as being equivalent to that horrible person. it's the same reason it's ultimately harmful to say "oh this horrible person is secretly gay" or "Nazis aren't people" or w/e. It doesn't do anything helpful and only serves to absolve your guilt rather than recognize that people, straight people, and neurotypical people can and (proportionally more often) are responsible for harm.
An armchair diagnosis doesn't absolve Hitler but does pass the buck onto neuroatypical people, you know, those who were, among others, targeted for extermination under the Third Reich. As such, I say that Hitler had the psychiatric disorder of being a neurotypical patriarchically-authoritarian conservative cishet white male.
Y'all can keep him. Stop trying to blame us for you killing us. Transbeeism (talk) 05:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
And it's not just Nazis that target neuroatypical people. When eugenics was popular, people from US and Europe mass forced sterilized them as criteria included alcoholics and "crazy" people. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 05:57, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
@Rationalzombie94 "what psychiatric disorder do you think Hitler had?"
That's a captious question, because it implicitly assume that Hitler had a psychiatric disorder. Like asking: "Who did create the universe?" is a captious question, because it implicitly assumes that somebody created the universe.
@LeftyGreenMario "This kind of discussion is a very, very bad idea. Mental health diagnoses are already heavily stigmatized."
That's a faulty kind of reasoning too. Instead of focusing on the question, you think about the implications of a possible answer, and you conclude that is better not to have this discussion, a sort of Appeal to consequencesWikipedia's W.svg. Thinker(unlicensed) 08:44, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
It seems to me that the nominal fallacy is involved in this problem. The fallacy is that, by naming the disorder attributed to Hitler, we might then know something that we previously did not know about how the crimes of Hitler are explained by his disorder. Psychiatric taxonomy has no such utility.Ariel31459 (talk) 16:23, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
I blame Hitler's psychopathology entirely on his vegetarianism. OTOH, he persuaded a nation of hundreds of millions of people to go along for his ride. He couldn't have been that crazy. Smerdis of Tlân, wekʷōm teḱs. 16:59, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
I was wondering what drives a guy to that level of insanity. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:03, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
I find it comforting to realize that Hitler was well within normal human capabilities and mental functionality. Smerdis of Tlân, wekʷōm teḱs. 17:05, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
@Rationalzombie94 "I was wondering what drives a guy to that level of insanity." It has been already pointed out by me and @Ariel31459 that the main question of your thread is based on some fallacies. Why are you ignoring that? Thinker(unlicensed) 17:40, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
UnlicensedThinker: The point here is not to engage in armchair psychology as Rationalzombie94 is asking us to do. You are likely wrong whatever you guess because you just look at symptoms and then assign a label when psychiatry requires far more information. You then can and will jump to the wrong conclusions based on premises that require expertise and competence which we just don't have unless any of us are practicing psychiatrists (even then, they have to work from limited information!) including him as not neurotypical and therefore not capable of heinous actions, or that's the implications. This is on top of the hostility and marginalization of people with mental health disorders and just dismissing that neurotypical people have problems and are capable of atrocious acts. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 18:37, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
I completely agree with you last post. Said so, you did not reply to what I said to you in my previous post. Thinker(unlicensed) 19:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
I believe I did reply. Yes, I resorted to appeal to a consequence, but my next post was also explaining the serious flaws of the simple task of affixing disorders to people, that task in of itself is highly prone to errors because none of us are even trained in the fields, and even psychiatrists can't form a confident conclusion because they don't know Hitler's personal records and all. Beyond this, then, are the terrible implications which are terrible on part because of ignorance. It plays hand in hand. So, it's a thoroughly bad idea from start to finish, rationally and morally. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 19:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
@LeftyGreenMario "I believe I did reply."
You didn't. Let's break it down: In essence, I said that "not having a discussion on a question Q because of the bad social implications of a possible answer to Q is faulty reasoning." Do you agree or disagree? And Why? Thinker(unlicensed) 20:22, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
I agree with that, and that's why I went further by completing the argument with saying that it's wrong to begin with. This is going off topic. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 20:29, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
"I agree with that" OK, good then Thinker(unlicensed) 20:34, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

This is my answer- he must have had a unique illness, some one-in-a-million condition that nobody before him had and nobody will ever have again. This is why it's so hard to think about why he was how he was. Because he was so insane he was like no other member of Humanity. Guffer (talk) 21:59, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Remember when Rosanne took and ambien and then acted like a dipshit? And when ambien responded with "there are some side effects to taking abien though racism is not one of them". I am pretty sure that genocide is not an inherent quality of psychological problems. maybe...oh just maybe...someone is overreaching here? like trying to to use a tree branch on earth to write their name on the moon. big distance. very little stick. no is possible ShabiDOO 10:30, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
a focus on hitlers mental health is kind of a lazy get out of jail free card for humanity. its easy to shift blame on a handful of individuals from the actions of a population at large, who needed to be complicit in the awful crimes of the nazis. so what if hitler was sane or if he speeding his tits of the whole time? it doesnt explain the actions of people manning gas chambers. see adolf eichmann and the banality of evil. we gain nothing from spurious assessments of hitlers mental state when we ignore the basic fact that, proved time and time again, we all have potential to do some truly horrendous things AMassiveGay (talk) 22:43, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I have a strange vision.[edit]


At the beginning of RationalWiki:Community_Standards#Conduct it is written:

β€œβ€We prefer and encourage that users and editors become a part of the community. We encourage everyone to join in, be bold, and engage in sensible debate, but expect them to do so without resorting to vandalizing articles or harassing other users.

However, recently I noticed that just mentioning certain topics resorts in some users immediately starting to insult you and even blocking you (apparently, against the community rules). Especially, instead of the principle of charityWikipedia's W.svg, some users start to insult you not because of something you have said, but because of something they suppose you think.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not offended by the insults. Actually, I find them extremely childish. But how one is supposed to engage in sensible debates, if he has to scroll down through text walls of all caps and insults?

Thinker(unlicensed) 18:19, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Certain topics? Some users? Be specific. Also, we operate on mob mentality. Everyone has sysop powers. Some people might block you, but others might want to unblock you. As for civility, the rules are very loose. We keep trying to encourage more civility, but the mob says no, so I don't know, just listen to the argument rather than focus on the insults of you're part of the crossfire. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 18:51, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
@LeftyGreenMario They're referring to me, in an underhanded and roundabout way. To the OP fuck you, shooting someone in the back after they throw up their hands and leave is cowardly bullcrap. Maybe the problem isn't that certain topics are taboo, maybe you're just an asshole with shitty opinions. Fucking tone troll... ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
I say more of constantly missing the point and engaging in weasel words as above, which gives impression of concern trolling. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 18:58, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
If you didn't invoke the concept of "sensible debate" while doing nothing of the sort, I'd feel so much more sympathy for your case. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:02, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
@LeftyGreenMario "Certain topics? Some users? Be specific." For example here and here.
"just listen to the argument" Argument? What argument do you see here, here, or here?
"Also, we operate on mob mentality." What about when "mob mentality" goes against RationalWiki:Community_Standards#Conduct? Thinker(unlicensed) 19:15, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Two of those were when ikanreed already decided to disengage with you. GrammarCommie had an argument there being "this is a nonissue" and providing an example why so. The two topics you listed really referred to one, being the Gilette thing and you getting blocked then unblocked for it.
That's where I tell people to cool it, which has worked to an extent. I think GrammarCommie listens to me. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 19:20, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
@LeftyGreenMario "Two of those were when ikanreed already decided to disengage with you."
So, for example, if I decide to disengage with you, then I can reply to each of your posts with "Stop being the dumbest fucker possible, please" and that would be OK with the community standards?
"GrammarCommie had an argument there being "this is a nonissue" and providing an example why so."
First, GrammarCommie replied to something I never said, that is, that the spot was controversial. Second, he did not provide an example why the Gillette spot was a not an issue, he provided an example of another thing which was not an issue. Saying "X is as stupid and overhyped as the time Y" it's not an explanation of why X is a non-issue.
"That's where I tell people to cool it, which has worked to an extent. I think GrammarCommie listens to me."
Are you kidding? He just wrote "To the OP fuck you ... maybe you're just an asshole with shitty opinions. Fucking tone troll..." Thinker(unlicensed) 19:37, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm prepared to go to my permaban grave on the grounds that, yes, you were being the dumbest fucker possible, and the whole of the substantive reply you required was contained in "Video not particularly noteworthy; corporations asserting conventional moral positions for the time as a way of creating a false sense of respect has been incredibly common for decades now. Everyone angry about it is somehow simultaneous with eachother the dumbest fucker possible. Yes I mean you."
It's not noteworthy as a problem, nothing special happened. It's as inoffensive as Dove doing the dumbass "everyone is beautiful" ads, or car commercials pretending to care about the safety of your family. Trivial and typical attempts to tie a sense of morality to their products. It's only notable to you because your brain has been melted by right wing ideology and think "toxic masculinity" as a concept was made up whole cloth. Which makes you a real goddamn dumb fucker. You want an argument? Assert an actual position, rather than boarding the latest mindless rage train with a bunch of dumbasses. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

β”Œβ”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”˜ Rude words is fine, bad attitude is not. Blocking GrammarCommie would be a pointless waste of time at best, no matter what he says, largely also so with ikanread. I am a major proponent to better community conduct, but by all means carry on the flame war. :D β€” Dysklyver 19:57, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Politeness serves a function and has a place and time. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:04, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
@Ikanreed "Everyone angry about it is somehow simultaneous with eachother the dumbest fucker possible. Yes I mean you.""
...and where did I say a was angry about the spot? Nowhere. As I said at the beginning of the thread, you are insulting me for something you suppose I think.
"your brain has been melted by right wing ideology and think "toxic masculinity" as a concept was made up whole cloth."
Again, I never expressed an opinion about "toxic masculinity"
"You want an argument? Assert an actual position"
I'd love to, but it's kinda difficult since you are already attaching to me several positions I never asserted. I'm totally able to have a rational conversation on the topic with you (in a different thread), but that requires that you stop replying to things I never said, insulting me, and labelling me with political positions (by the way, things I never did when confronting you). Otherwise it's just impossible. Thinker(unlicensed) 20:14, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Buddy, you were pissed as hell about it. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:19, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
You didn't explicitly say anything about the concept of toxic masculinity, but the language in "Gillette decided to lecture their customers about 'toxic masculinity'" tells me a lot about your position, intended or not, particularly the air quotes and the word choice "lecture". --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 20:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
@Ikanreed "Buddy, you were pissed as hell about it" Evidences?
@LeftyGreenMario "tells me a lot about your position"
Does it tell you anything about me which I was accused later? Thinker(unlicensed) 20:32, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, you're being weirdly dodgy about things. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 20:33, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
You wouldn't have gone to the effort of posting the video on the bar, then in a subsequent post, listing each and every moment you didn't like if you weren't in some way offended by it. DuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 20:36, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
(ECx2)Stop demanding evidence for obvious things. Stop demanding comprehensive argument about banal points. Neither is clever. It's particularly galling to do so after LGM gave perfectly reasonable examples of how anyone could intuit it. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, I don't respect the intellectually dishonest. Own your positions, don't do some dumbass motte and bailey over dumbass right wing culture war garbage. The fact that you could be better than this, but explicitly choose not to be is exactly what warranted the original condescension you objected to. The direction of this conversation was obvious from post zero. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:42, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Guys, you all make a lot of suppositions...
"listing each and every moment you didn't like"
Never said I didn't like them, I actually called them "Best moments" (without quotation marks).
"you didn't like if you weren't in some way offended by it."
I wrote that list laughing (especially the tenacious bullies and hood parts). I even put a LOL at the end...
@Ikanreed "Stop demanding evidence for obvious things."
Translation: "Stop demanding evidence that I cannot provide" What are you? A religious leader?
"I've said it before, and I'll say it again, I don't respect the intellectually dishonest. Own your positions"
I have already said that I'm totally fine and I'd love to debate toxic masculinity as soon as you stop accusing me from things I never said. The one who's refraining from that is you. Thinker(unlicensed) 20:55, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Weellllll, at least you didn't go "my language and air quotes mean nothing, you make things up". --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 21:00, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Never said I didn't like them, I actually called them "Best moments" (without quotation marks). You're either joking or you're actually dumber than I thought. Regardless, you're obviously looking either cheap entertainment or a flock of ignorant children to tell you how clever you are. Either way, you're in the wrong place. DuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 21:02, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

β”Œβ”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”˜ Every reply in this conversation is another step down the "if I'm slightly more pedantic about this it means I win" trail. This isn't a debate about empiricism or the validity of methods, it's about the simple human intuition of intent from words. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:09, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

You worded that better than I could've. DuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 21:13, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
@Ikanreed ...and of course you ignored "I have already said that I'm totally fine and I'd love to debate toxic masculinity as soon as you stop accusing me from things I never said. The one who's refraining from that is you." and now you will explain why you cannot debate with me without resorting to strawmen and insults... but I gotta go to work, bye Thinker(unlicensed) 21:23, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Tragic. Think of all the pedantry and quibbling I'm missing. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:34, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
I am reminded of a missionary wandering into a tribe of cannibals. At least the cannibals were amused.Ariel31459 (talk) 03:16, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

@LeftyGreenMario You never answered the following questions:

(a) What about when "mob mentality" goes against RationalWiki:Community_Standards#Conduct?

(b) So, for example, if I decide to disengage with you, then I can reply to each of your posts with "Stop being the dumbest fucker possible, please" and that would be OK with the community standards? Thinker(unlicensed) 08:43, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

You're being weirdly dodgy and stuff, as I've noticed from you. Getting the reaction you are having is expected, as we don't like when people are perceived to not have intellectual honesty. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 19:30, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
You talk of intellectual honesty and you keep ignoring my questions. Especially question (a), which is nothing particularly strange to ask, since you are a moderator and its absolutely legit that an user ask to you how "mob mentality" and community standards work here. Whatever... Thinker(unlicensed) 22:06, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Since we've strayed from the topic[edit]

Dumb ideas can and will be dismissed out of hand as dumb ideas. Intellectual dishonesty, sealioning, and attempts to offend will be met with hostility. That's just a fact of life here. DuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 20:41, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

There's an exception, if you purposefully set up a debate knowing and allowing for the fact that its central subject is dumb in advance we fucking love it. Set up a debate on which poptart flavor is better, when we all know they all taste like corn syrup? That will get legit debate. It's like the "hotdog=sandwhich?" all in good fun. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:46, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
@Ikanreed A hot dog is not a sandwich. DuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 20:53, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
I think it's a sandwich. I also like pineapples on pizza. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 21:00, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm calling the Inquisition. DuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 21:12, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm calling for a pineapple pizza to be delivered. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:14, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
I think we call pineapple pizza "pineapple pie" at this point. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 22:17, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Pineapple on pizza is sacrilege. Sweet sinful sacrilege. Also, hotdog sandwiches are a thing in Australia, kinda. Aul sausage sizzles are great with a tin of VB Cardinal Chang (talk) 22:46, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
I'd go to hell for Pineapple Pizza regardless if its sinful.ŘïmΕ©Ε—Γ» Ε’Γ¨mpéŝţRimuru Slime.png 23:21, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

No...that's nonsense Unlicensedthinker. it's true there are a few overreactions but in general...the users who face hostility are almost always one kind of troll or another (too frequently concern trolls) and have posted other super stupid shit before numerous times. I don't think most of them are actually interesting in joining the community or "having a dialogue" but instead doing everything to get a reaction out to us (which we normally serve them). If someone in the street insisted that your great-great-grandparents are now zombies walking around Australia night and day and you're a stupid leftist asshole if you don't believe me, I really don't know how many people would bother "engaging in a dialogue" with the guy. if there were any reaction it would be finding a mental-health clinic for the person or if they're relatively sane...laughing and returning the jibes. ShabiDOO 10:38, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

@UnlicensedThinker It is paradoxical that people who want the world to be a better place have little or no interest in applying strict standards to their own behavior. Can we be blamed for our human nature? Try doing something useful. Edit an article. Someone will disagree, saying they think you are dumb as a basket of rocks ( not the smart kind). Get over it and try again. Don't waste your time with insipid, provocative comments. Please do something interesting.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:26, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ariel31459 "It is paradoxical that people who want the world to be a better place have little or no interest in applying strict standards to their own behavior."
This sounds a perfect comment for GC and ikanreed
"Edit an article."
I already did
"Don't waste your time with insipid, provocative comments."
Man... I'm the one saying that insults and strawmen are destructive
"Please do something interesting."
This ("I'm totally fine and I'd love to debate toxic masculinity...") would be interesting, but it has been repetitively ignored. Thinker(unlicensed) 17:50, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Get over it and try again. Do something else that is interesting. Don't expect a debate. Actually, you should avoid debates. Stick to facts that are not debatable. Don't be distracted by the affects of this wiki. Ariel31459 (talk) 18:11, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
"Don't expect a debate"
From RationalWiki:Constructive dialogue: "We here at RationalWiki always welcome those who disagree with points of view presented here to discuss their disagreement with us..." Thinker(unlicensed) 18:50, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Our hypocrisy is one of our least novel characteristics. What is your point? Did I tell you to get over it yet?Ariel31459 (talk) 19:17, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
We also don't like sea lions. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 19:30, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
"Our hypocrisy is one of our least novel characteristics." :-| Thinker(unlicensed) 22:06, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Ehhhhh, Ariel has negative experience with ikanreed too, just some background. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 22:07, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
But he's a great guy once you get to know him. Let me add, since you brought it up, "toxic masculinity" is sort of a buzz-word. There is no article in this wiki on the topic. Wikipedia redirects to an article on Hegemonic masculinity. Ariel31459 (talk) 23:09, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
You don't know toxic masculinity until you've seen Fist of the North Star. I know this sounds trollish, but you're looking at a story where an aggressive man asks other aggressive men to be sorry for their aggressions. They always apologize, but they are never sorry enough, and they get punched to a fitting death. Dude literally gets tricked into killing his arch-rival over a girl BY HIS ARCH-RIVAL. And he's literally questioned about that, and says it's fine because they were both in love with the same woman. Regards all the torture and bad acting as justified, because that's just another way a man shows his love. Seriously, watch the anime or read the manga. Jojo;s Bizarre Adventure comes close, but Fist is a clinic for men being toxic. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 10:28, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Just a reminder[edit]

The trump administration purposefully harmed children with their immigration policy, on the grounds that the media reporting it might have a chilling effect. As many have noted before me, the cruelty is the point. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:59, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Noted. The cruelty is the point, and the point affects only one target. This is how the power plays it back on the powerless. This is how power justifies separating children from their parents, just to make sure its not child trafficking. But there is a huge population that thinks child trafficking via undocumented immigration is real. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:47, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Do we separate the children from the child traffickers or give the children to the child traffickers? It's a non-sum argument if you believe such things Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:54, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, but they don't actually believe that's what's happening when they say that's what they're doing. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:53, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Using children as weapons of politics is just sick and twisted. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 16:36, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Pronunciation of cement[edit]

On numerous occasions now, I've heard the American South pronounce ce-MENT as semen with a T. Actually, they do this with many words, most disconcertingly "DE-cember", but one would think they'd eventually stop saying semen-t. β€”Dorianha Bogelund (talk) 21:00, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

It's just a regional accents thing. As a person who's moved from Florida to Kansas, I just had to get used to it. Although I can't believe some people call soda "pop". DuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 21:03, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
In Left 4 Dead 2, one of the survivors, Nick, makes fun of the pronunciation of "cement" at Ellis's (a southerner) expense ("You could almost call this a SEE-meant river, Ellis!"). Ellis just sarcastically laughs. Heh. I didn't get the joke at the time, though. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 21:09, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
One of my biggest insecurities is that, growing up in the rural south, I developed a southern accent without knowing it. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:20, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Guess ill join in this odd convo after my long absence due to life. This reminds me of all the ways people say tomato, avocado, advertisement, tortilla, and garbage.Rimuru TempestRimuru Slime.png 23:04, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
I have the weirdest verbal tick with the word garbage, even when I'm trying my best to say it right, it comes out like "the president of the United States" ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 23:07, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Heh, personally I don't like any candidates, none of them finish what they promise and most are crap anyways. The only ones who end up being the last standing are the worst of the two sides. Guess I hate politics in general.Rimuru Da NinjaRimuru Slime.png 23:12, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
We should probably let readers know what region we are from before we comment because each region has pronunciation quirks. I'm from Southern California. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 00:28, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Mid-Central Michigan is where I live. Plenty of people who are of French and German descent are in Michigan. Though many Dutch people live in western Michigan. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 03:16, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Rational Driver[edit]

WHY? Why do we keep this person around. There twice as bad as Nobs and TheDarkMaster2 put together and have contributed nothing of value to the wiki besides anti-semitism and racism. Commie Lib (talk) 23:33, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

No clue. I have typed up posts that come out wrong or misunderstood in the past, some sounding racist but not my actual intention. Nobs is somewhat tolerable. Rationaldriver is in a league of his or her own. Rationaldriver makes me look sane. That is saying something. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:31, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Would anyone be apposed to me extending the ban permanently? Commie Lib (talk) 00:53, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
"No - not opposed" (TYOP? appose: verb to place side by side, as two things; place next to; juxtapose. to put or apply (one thing) to or near to another.) Scream!! (talk) 01:04, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Won't be missed. Was always trouble since posted the first comment and all. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 01:05, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Ok Commie Lib (talk) 01:15, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
He can go back to Metapedia. No love lost. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:49, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Nobs tolerable? Seriously? About as tolerable as a fart in a spacesuit. Cardinal Chang (talk) 08:31, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

In comparison with Rationaldriver, he is somewhat tolerable. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 12:46, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Blimey, really? He must be a right headcase then if he makes Nobs by comparison somewhat tolerable. Cardinal Chang (talk) 16:44, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Considering that Rationaldriver actually buys into the race and intelligence bullshit and supports Hitler. So yeah, nobs is tolerable in comparison. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:37, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
@Tabula Rasa "Would anyone be apposed to me extending the ban permanently?" Shouldn't that be discussed at the Chicken coop? From RationalWiki:Blocking_policy#Duration: "For any longer block, please get consensus from the mob at the Chicken coop." Thinker(unlicensed) 08:49, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
He's not wrong, a coop case would be needed for a ban of this nature. β€” Dysklyver 14:23, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps but these are guidelines. I don't see the harm in trying out Chicken Coop, but I don't see the results being any different? If trolls don't shut up from temp block, collapses, reverts, and vandalized bin, don't we just resort to long term, and if they don't shut up from long term, do they get Perma? Seems sensical. By the way Rational driver is one of those very persistent trolls. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 20:01, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
You guys know I can read what you say about me, right? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 11:04, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Aye, we do. Why, do mean words trigger you? Are you needing a safe space? It's ok to admit you're a special little snowflake Cardinal Chang (talk) 14:14, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

American politics in a nutshell[edit]


This clip sums up American politics. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 13:29, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

What about 'Nuts - hell'? (talk) 17:36, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Hilariously bad pseudosciences: What is your favorite to make fun of?[edit]

While creationism is hilariously bad, not my favorite. My favorites go to-

  • Flat Earth
  • Race and Intelligence

--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 03:22, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Mine would be pH woo, because it's so obviously dumb. Homeopathy is also a classic, for similar reasons. I also find the Paleo diet and the scares around gluten to be freaking ridiculous. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 03:47, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Nothing can be homeopathy for me. It's just so deliciously absurd. DuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 04:52, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
The only thing more amusing than homeopathy is homeopathic homeopathy, which is achieved by selling the bathwater of a homeopath. That's how it works in my head-- or did, until I realized that there would actually be bits of the homeopath in the bathwater, which defeats the concepts of homeopathy, so never mind. Sometimes I say nonsensical things.
Like homeopathy. Kencolt (talk) 08:39, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Faith healing is a true classic but not an all time favorite. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 15:58, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
In a world where vaccination -- the notion that a weak dose of smallpox made you immune to the worse kind -- had just been invented, homeopathy probably seemed to be worth a try. It was not a completely irrational attempt in the early 19th century. My favorite pseudosciences are the ones that make interestingly intricate artifacts, like alchemy, astrology, and phrenology. Smerdis of Tlân, wekʷōm teḱs. 19:54, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
In the pre-scientific age alchemy and astrology etc (which occurred in many different forms) were cutting edge science, and included varying quantities of what is now regarded as 'proper technology and evidence based science' (or has been co-opted): it was the interpretation that has diverged. Their modern-day equivalents are another matter.
And even the prayers and incarnations could have a practical use: in a world without accurate clocks reciting X standard prayers at the standard rate was as good as a timer (and good for your soul as well). Anna Livia (talk) 23:17, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

My favorite is that Antarctica is actually a 150 mile high wall, and gravity is actually the flat earth accelerating upwards, holding us down. And racialism. They're both pretty fucking stupid. Asaac Isimov (talk) 15:22, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

The earth is accelerating upward*. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Subtopic: Hilariously bad creationist arguments[edit]

This one is specifically from the ICR- We Are Totally Not Apes. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 03:07, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Fuck it, I'm back.[edit]

Thanks to a self enforced "vacation" (read what was supposed to be me stepping back and retiring) I'm back. The terminal inability to retire properly is a hereditary trait in my family. Oh, and the Gillette outrage is still stupid, and if that starts up again I'll flood the saloon with examples of how opportunistic corporations are. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 04:27, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Good.Ariel31459 (talk) 04:36, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
You left in the first place? β€” Ζ‰ΓΈn Δ΄uan Harass 05:01, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Didn't know you were leaving, but welcome back! Bongolian (talk) 05:51, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
How were the video games? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 06:40, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Welcome to RationalWiki. You'll never leave! Avida Dollarsher again 12:11, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
@Bongolian@Don Juan See [5] and [6]. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:25, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
You came back so quickly I didn't have time to miss you! β€” Dysklyver 22:33, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

A note on Draft Space[edit]

@Annanoon, @Euromec, @Don Juan

After polishing up an article in draftspace and moving it to mainspace, it's always a good idea to make an announcement in the Saloon that there's a new article in mainspace. Why? Because it does not show up in the list of new mainspace pages (Special:NewPages). Alternatively copy and paste the article into mainspace rather than move it. That will eliminate the draftspace history, but you can (I think) restore the history using Special:MergeHistory if you so desire. Bongolian (talk) 06:01, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, that explains a lot. It also means that I now have a legitimate excuse to come here and boast every time I complete a new translation. That's something that I will enjoy doing! Spud (talk) 09:43, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
If anyone starts copy and paste moving pages then I will block them for 3.6 days (in sysoprevoke if needed) purely on principle. You have been warned. β€” Dysklyver 22:46, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
The principle being…? Bongolian (talk) 04:40, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm pretty intrigued by what exactly your though process is Dysklyver. ShabiDOO 17:37, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
The edit history is a legal requirement. Not to mention extremely useful. Don't stuff it up. β€” Dysklyver 19:32, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

β”Œβ”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”˜So if someone goes the copy-and-paste route but then does the MergeHistory, you should be OK with that, @Dysklyver? Bongolian (talk) 22:08, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Why should edit history be a legal requirement? What's wrong with pages coming fully written right from the start the way Athena sprang forth fully grown and armored from the forehead of Zeus? Nerd (talk) 23:02, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
@Bongolian, yes, see WP:HISTMERGE on Wikipedia for details on how to go about repairing the revision history.
@Nerd, there is nothing wrong with you writing the whole thing in one go, the issue is drafts are generally edited by more than one person, and in copyright law, every single edit creates a new derivative work, which build on each other in a way recorded by the edit history. Attribution to the authors for every single one of these derivative works is required by the terms of the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license, if you break the attribution by losing the revision history then the article actually becomes a copyright violation.
The only exception to this is where a copy and paste move is made by the author of every edit to the article, because they can re-license their creation in that edit. This is useful for when moving content from a sandbox for example. β€” Dysklyver 01:55, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
So you're going to block a user for making an honest mistake? ShabiDOO 22:00, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't think the MergeHistory command will actually work on copy-pasted pages. I tried it on Trump-Russia connection with the page it was forked from (Donald Trump) and it didn't work. I posted a query about this on the RationalWiki:Technical support page. Bongolian (talk) 03:10, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Thoughts about this video?[edit]

So, a guy in Twitter sent me this link, what do you guys thinks?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-2z3en-oIo — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Indigenous Peoples March[edit]

The Guardian:

"A Catholic school in Kentucky has condemned a group of its students after they were recorded harassing a Native American Vietnam veteran in a video that went viral on Saturday.

The students, many of whom were wearing β€œMake America Great Again” caps, from private, all-male Covington Catholic High School in Park Hills were in Washington for an anti-abortion rally on Friday when they were filmed surrounding Nathan Phillips and mocking the Native American’s singing and drumming."

Thinker(unlicensed) 12:42, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Nathan Phillips is a Vietnam veteran too. He's done more for his country than that lot of puffed up, self righteous embarrassments will ever aspire to. Cardinal Chang (talk) 14:11, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Anyhow, his story does not add up.
Nathan Phillips: "When I started going forward and the massive group of people started separating and separating and moving aside to allow me to move out of the way, to proceed, this young fellow put himself in front of me and he wouldn't move. If a took another step, I would be putting myself into his space and I would have touched him. That would have been the thing the group of people needed to spring on me." CNN (at 1:30).
But here you see that is Phillips that deliberately walked into the boy's space. Thinker(unlicensed) 15:23, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Can you find a video of the same time frame but from further back? It's hard to gauge if the smirking twerp moves into N.P.'s path or if N.P. walks into his. Cardinal Chang (talk) 16:10, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
In this video you cas see that Phillips was the first to walk into the group of boys. Also, here you can see Phillips banging the drum on the boy's shoulder. Thinker(unlicensed) 18:26, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Interesting footage, I have to admit. And not how the story has been framed. One wonders what brought those disparate groups together. The catholic school was part of an anti-abortion protest, what were the indigenous people protesting about? On a side note, the event as a whole seems to be indicative of politics in America lately, and in other places around the world. Cardinal Chang (talk) 18:42, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't see the inconsistencies between what Phillips said and what happened. I do see how it's indicative of politics, though, that right-wing movements have to be opposed. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 20:38, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
"I don't see the inconsistencies between what Phillips said and what happened."
Then you don't see the difference between "somebody that put himself in front of you" and "you that walk to somebody who is standing still." Thinker(unlicensed) 21:06, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
"One wonders what brought those disparate groups together"
As far as I understood, the boys where waiting their bus for the March for LifeWikipedia's W.svg. In the meantime, some Black Hebrews Israelites were screaming at the Native Americans that the true God is Jehovah, that they should "stop worship Eagles, Buffaloes..." and that that was the reason why their land was taken (click). After almost an hour of this nonsense, the BHL called "Uncle Toms" some black guys, and then said that they "have all these dirty ass crackers behind you", referring to the boys with MAGA hats (click). From that moment, the BHL continue to insults the MAGA hats. Then Phillips came, probably misunderstanding the situation. (click).
Thinker(unlicensed) 21:02, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
That all maybe so. You may well like to think it, and it could possibly even be as you say it is. But all that comes to mind as I see that shit eating smirk on the red hat wearing creep is the word "backpfeifengesicht" and it really is. Cardinal Chang (talk) 22:21, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Yeah.... I have to redact my older opinions on this; this may not be what the media shows it. The guy who was with the drummer offered his side of the story, so now, I have to take his word for it that he seems misunderstood? He was more like grinning and bearing it? The Black Hebrew Israelites said very horrible things, racist and homophobic slurs, to the kids though; you shouldn't be saying this to people, even if they are wearing the red hats. I think the two misunderstood each other. Phillips was trying to diffuse between the school kids and the nasty Black Hebrew Israelites, perhaps Sandmann didn't know about that, and just stood there, trying to remain calm, though this could be taken as being passive aggressive? Anyhow, it's the Black Hebrew Israelites that are the real villains of the story, it seems. I probably got the wrong information and impressions, and so I'm highly doubting the previous information I'm getting. I think this is a huge misunderstanding between Phillips and the kids, and the media in their part, didn't do a good job. The guy who was with Phillips said he received a lot of harassment, death threats, insults, all that horrible stuff. I also condemn people on social media who said these people are incels or future school shooters or future rapists or should've been aborted, I've always been uncomfortable reading it and now I have more reason to distance myself from them. I'm still on the fence on the actual event though, I don't know if I'm wrong, Reason might be right, but maaaybe I should just see the video. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 01:54, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
This is the whole story, according to newsmaven. Not a pretty thing to sit through. I think the story I buy is that the students acted really stupid, the Black Hebrew Israelites were awful (but that's to be expected), and Phillips was just trying to diffuse the entire thing, but maybe the students were confused by him. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 02:06, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
The story should have been about a group of Black Hebrew Israelites harassing Native Americans, Blacks, and kids (essentially everybody on the scene) with crazy religion theories and racial slurs. Instead, the major media outlets intentionally or incompetently (and both cases are very bad) created a story about racist MAGA hat boys harassing a Native American vet, putting the boys under the threat of an angry mob. Thinker(unlicensed) 08:49, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
What I'm wondering is why are people investing time and attention in obvious manufactroversies? (talk) 02:52, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
What? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 04:23, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I think all this means that the entry in WIGO:World needs to be updated. Or rewritten. Or removed. Or something. Spud (talk) 14:30, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Indeed the media was likely weary of having to demonstrate two different stories, and that white boys in trump hats towards native-americans is a far more explosive story than a group of African-Jewish people saying scummy shit. Regardless of who started it, who said the worst thing, who blocked who...the video is still very disturbing. There is no doubt these school-boys were both aggressively and passive-aggressively mocking him, insulting him etc all with those snotty righteous dipshit smerks on their faces. I'd be sickened if they were my students and I'd certainly support them being expelled if they did this while on a school activity. ShabiDOO 17:34, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
No doubt? The boys were dancing and singing to the beat of the drum. Isn't that something that a drummer who walks into a group of people should expect? No boy says anything insulting to Phillips, and the fact that you don't like their faces means nothing.
To say it all, after almost a hours of insults from the BHL and after Phillips came as close as possible to them singing and drumming loudly (which, despite Phillips' intentions, could have been seen as very confrontational) the boys reaction was dancing, chanting and... having fun; instead of getting angry or even physical, like many other people would have done in such a situation. For their ages they handled the situation pretty well. Thinker(unlicensed) 18:12, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Clearly we have watched a few different videos, cause unless one of us is extremely naive or gullible, who knows. But then what do we do with the accounts of other witnesses and a lack of accounts from the school-boys. Sure, some seem to be just laughing at the situation, some are even singing along, others are totally mocking the song and singing out Indian stereotypes and then there are the witness accounts of others claiming in the same way that they made specific offensive comments numerous times some of those boys made no "positive effort" at all. They're being smug dip-shits and I'm also weary of dismissing or ignoring other witnesses accounts because they aren't palatable. ShabiDOO 19:17, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
"But then what do we do with the accounts of other witnesses and a lack of accounts from the school-boys..."
I sincerely have no idea of what you mean. Thinker(unlicensed)
The thing about eyewitness accounts is just how unreliable they are and are so prone to warping from personal experience and biases. I would take those with a grain of salt. The videos and plain descriptions from multiple angles are more reliable than eyewitness. I think overall, this is heavily overblown? What those kids did are stupid and insensitive, but they are in no way like the racists who threw food at sit-in protestors, what the liberals compare them to. I believe the boy's account too as well as Phillips, and I do wish the boy learns something or two (like learn to walk away and disengage, learn about the symbolism of the red hats, which him and his group didn't do and are big mistakes; but saying "they should've walked away" is just being Captain Hindsight) though those morons who harassed him and sent him death threats and shit are doing the absolute wrong thing in combating racism and bigotry and can really screw off. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 21:47, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
[7] Millennium Scallion (talk) 04:27, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
"I believe the boy's account too as well as Phillips"
At least two things that Phillips said are contradicted by the videos. As I have already pointed out, he said that the boy put himself in front of him, but the video shows that was Phillips to walk into the boy's space. He also said the boys where chanting "build the wall" (which, by the way, it's not something insulting), but that's not heard in the videos.
"I do wish the boy learns something or two ... learn about the symbolism of the red hats"
The MAGA hat is the symbol of the 2016 Trump's presidential campaign. It's not a symbol of hate, and nobody should be harassed for wearing it in a public place. That's what should been learned about the MAGA hat.
"those morons who harassed him and sent him death threats and shit are doing the absolute wrong thing in combating racism and bigotry."
They are doing the wrong thing period. They are not combating racism and bigotry. Thinker(unlicensed) 08:09, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
No, the MAGA hat has been quite co-opted by the far-right / white-nationalist / alt-right crowd at this point. I mean, when you go to places like r/TheDonald, the place on Reddit for Donald Trump fans, you aren't going to hear sober advocacy of Austrian school economics or discussion of the perils of bloated government. Instead, you are going to see (aside from the usual muckracking) anti-immigrant or anti-minority spin, "globalist" conspiracy and other conspiracy theories, and the usual "white male victim" crap. Reddit by comparison is tame compared to the flat out racism you see on "uncensored" platforms (your 8Chans and Voats). So yes, that's what the hat represents to me today, sorry. At any rate, I found the attitude of the high school kids in the video smug, condescending, and for some of them borderline racist (yes, even in the full video), so no surprise with the hats. It is not so egregious to deserve the stupid social media storm it got, but it certainly isn't Christian behavior, it certainly isn't respectable behavior in my book, and to call the left wing media's reaction as 100% fake news (as the right wing is falling over themselves to do) only amplifies how boorish attitudes are now baked into the American right wing. (It is true that the Black Hebrew Israelites were actually even nastier folks, but everyone knows they are extremist nuts, and I have seen zero articles with positive words to them.) Soundwave106 (talk) 13:52, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
"No, the MAGA hat has been quite co-opted by the far-right / white-nationalist / alt-right crowd at this point. I mean, when you go to places like..."
Racists wearing MAGA hats doesn't make MAGA hats a symbol of racism. If you go to other places, you can see non-racists wearing MAGA hats. Claiming that the symbol of the campaign of the current US president, voted by about 63 million Americans (including 600 thousand Blacks and 2 million Latinos), is a symbol of racism is delusional.
"that's what the hat represents to me today... I found the attitude of the high school kids in the video smug, condescending, and for some of them borderline racist..."
Is more interesting having a conversation about facts, instead of your opinions.
"It is true that the Black Hebrew Israelites were actually even nastier folks, but everyone knows they are extremist nuts"
Nobody here (not certain me) is claiming that the boys' behavior was OK because the BHL behavior was worse, so you made a counterargument to an argument that nobody made. The BHL behavior was really bad and the boys' behavior wasn't bad. Thinker(unlicensed) 17:02, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
You seem to be handbrushing away the asshole mocking behavior of the high school students, which I see as pretty factual at this point. So I question your deep concern about "facts". And the root source of MAGA hats being co-opted by white nationalists is Donald Trump making a number of racist statements and actions, so what is the surprise here? Not everyone who voted for Trump is a racist, but not every Trump voter is still wearing the MAGA hat in 2019. At this point I consider the excuses on the MAGA hat similar to other handwaving done for things like the Confederate flag and, to give an example on the left, things like Che Guevara T-shirts. If you don't know the full background of why such might be offensive, you are quite ignorant. But it is far more likely that such a person is covering up a world view that they know is socially unacceptable. (In the anonymous Internet, this tends to be confirmed.) Soundwave106 (talk) 22:32, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I've commented out the story on WIGO:World, which said that Trump-supporting and abortion-opposing schoolboys were nasty to an old Native American man. There's obviously more to the story than that and it looks like it might be a while before the whole truth comes out. If anybody would like to update the story, that's fine. But I feel better hiding what seems to be an oversimplified and inaccurate WIGO entry instead of just leaving it there. Spud (talk) 06:16, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

@Spud Well done. Thinker(unlicensed) 07:51, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

is it normal in the us for schools to send its pupils out on demos or to have such overt partisanship? AMassiveGay (talk) 15:24, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Not so for public schools, at least in my experience. However, the school in question is a private Catholic institution. DuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 15:25, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
its pretty disgusting imho - assuming its not just a group from a school not endorsed by it. and then theres sending kids from an all male school to an anti abortion demo AMassiveGay (talk) 15:29, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
also, are private schools registered charities like in the uk (currently, but in question)? AMassiveGay (talk) 15:37, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure if charity is the right word, but they do get the 501(c)(3) tax exemption offered by the IRS to nonprofits. DuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 15:42, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
that answers my follow up question - such political activity is apparently allowed. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:46, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Find it sad that someone who fought for his country gets treated like garbage. As someone against racism, it is sickening. As someone who supports the military and veterans, it is sickening. Anybody got a barf bag for me? This is stomach churning. Talk about ignoring the teachings of Jesus. What the fuck? --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 16:28, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

It seems you read the first post, and you missed the entire thread. Thinker(unlicensed) 17:02, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
The smug superior stare down made me think that kid was going to break into singing Tomorrow Belongs To Me, but since Catholic high school boys are notorious assholes, especially in a group, and especially on a school field trips, I chalk it up to adolescent idiocy. However Trump using it to stir up hatred of the LΓΌgenpresse is downright creepy. Millennium Scallion (talk) 17:13, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
he was treated like garbage though - from the black israelites at least, according to the thread here. by the school kids? who knows - conflicting reports, while the video posted can be viewed as a rorschach test - its doesnt prove or disprove anything and can you read it to what ever you like - either walking through the crowd, he was funnelled into that boy who refused to give way or coming face to face with native american veteran, the boy could only give a nervous grin, unsure how to react. believe what you want to believe but the evidence is ambiguous at bestAMassiveGay (talk) 17:22, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
The main media outlets rushed to tell a false story, intentionally or incompetently, putting boys under the threat of an angry mob... and the creepy one is Trump?
"video posted can be viewed as a rorschach test - its doesnt prove or disprove anything"
It disprove some of the things Phillips says, I have already commented about that. Thinker(unlicensed) 17:32, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
If he was unsure of how to react he could simply step aside. Getting into an elderly drummer's face while his buds are acting up is adolescent macho. Stupid and assholish, but not conclusively racist. Millennium Scallion (talk) 17:30, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
or just give a nervous grin. as i said - it doesnt disprove the veterans account nor prove it. you read in to whatever you want - you have, and so has unlicensedthinker. as i said, the video is ambiguous. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:39, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
"If he was unsure of how to react he could simply step aside."
Being unsure of how to react includes being unsure if stepping aside is a good idea. Anyhow, if stepping aside would or wouldn't have been better doesn't matter: If you are standing still and somebody gets as close as possible to you invading your personal space, you have no obligation to step aside.
"Getting into an elderly drummer's face"
It was Phillips who got into the boy face with his drummer. At some point he even touched the boy shoulder with his drum. Thinker(unlicensed) 17:41, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
at this stage this insisting it was one or the other is pretty stupid. its not inconsistent with with the native americans account,and from his position it could certainly seem threatening to him. its just as likely a misunderstanding from one or both sides. i will say again for a third time, it is ambiguous and you are reading into it what what you want to read into, and assuming motive to boot. as some said earlier, its american politics in a nutshell - the other side is always wrong and assume the worst possible motive. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:56, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
It's one thing to take witness accounts with a grain of salt, it's another thing to dismiss them because you don't like them. In any case, the BBC interviewed or obtained the accounts of several other people there (the CBC article has more accounts). I almost always read American news through the BBC or CBC, because they are far more objective and they often to in depth. ShabiDOO 22:08, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

UnlicensedThinker, Spud, AMassiveGay: Thank you for your thoughts on the matter which more or less validate my thoughts. I feel like I'm going crazy when practically the rest of the liberals wholly disagree with me and make such pronounced statements on the boys, and TheAtlantic entry on WIGO:Blogs has negative points when I actually agree with it. I keep seeing that people just say the boy is lying to cover his ass but IMO, people are holding the students to a higher standard. You can criticize the boys with their dumb MAGA hats and their approach, but people are also jumping to conclusions when they say the boys are racist smug assholes. Even to say they're "mocking" is an interpretation of an event you're not part of.

"If he was unsure of how to react he could simply step aside." that's the thing, you're being Captain Hindsight. I think at the time, he's bewildered and he perhaps decided to just stand there and hold his ground. He doesn't know what Phillips is doing, and Phillips is the one who approached. I'd imagine the boy was ignorant of Native American culture, so IMO my guess would be that he, in his limited experience with political gathering, would just stand there, and maybe smile. "but everyone knows they are extremist nuts"; clearly some people don't because they weren't identified already, and I really think it's within realm of possibility that the teens do not know who they are. I think if I were in his shoes, I would also be stunned and stand there, not sure if I'd smile, but I think I might've done the same thing.

Also, AMassiveGay, as far as I know, private tax-exempt schools are not allowed to engage in political activities, per being tax-exempt. I think the school is stretching the boundaries and did the very wrong thing of sending kids to an anti-abortion rally. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 00:35, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

when i googled 501s, it seemed to imply party politics is a no no, but lobbying activity, of which demos would probably count, for specific issues is fine. i wasnt trying 'catch' the school out, just using your students for your political ends seems to pretty dubious to me and i was just seeing lie of the land. AMassiveGay (talk) 01:37, 23 January 2019 (UTC)


β€” Ζ‰ΓΈn Δ΄uan Harass 15:56, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Great song! An ordinary human man (talk) 15:57, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

BoJack Horseman[edit]

Just finished all the released episodes. Does anyone have any thoughts on it? RoninMacbeth (talk) 23:09, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Really compelling show, TBH. β€” Ζ‰ΓΈn Δ΄uan Harass 00:32, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Got a little heavy handed in the last season "This terrible character isn't supposed to make you feel better about yourself being not as bad" being actual dialog isn't subtle. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:50, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
My thoughts? Kristen Schaal's (Sara Lynn) finest work in season 3. I kinda wish they went a bit more in depth into Sara Lynn's stepfather; it's only vaguely hinted at but her stepfather's character design is actually modeled on an infamous child molester. She's definitely the saddest character on the show in spite of being the Olson twins. CoryUsar (talk) 02:16, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

My neighbors are sick fucked up freaks[edit]

Me and my family let our neighbors use the YouTube account we have for our T.V, now here is the fun part. Obviously we can view the watch history and what do we find frequently- Live death videos. It is just sick and twisted. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:27, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah you need to move. β€” Dysklyver 18:39, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
The internet is destroying all our brains. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:55, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Lunar eclipse[edit]

Hopefully everybody so inclined got their lunar-eclipse-influenced potions completed, so they will be ready for the next equinox/solstice. Anna Livia (talk) 10:58, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I suffered permenant eye damage staring directly at the Lunar Eclipse. Wear the glasses, people. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:58, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
You were supposed to be looking at the moon! β€” Dysklyver 19:22, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry with my permanent eye damage, I can't actually see you not getting the joke. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:53, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Yeah I am still super high. β€” Dysklyver 01:59, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
I am including 'creators of pleasant lotions and potions' in my original posting as well as the more specialist 'herbalists etc.' Anna Livia (talk) 10:32, 22 January 2019 (UTC)


Fucking cocksuckers at the Discord muted me for relatively minor transgressions. Have my Internet attorney @Dysklyver fighting on my behalf. The RW server is a kangaroo court, I demand a retrial! β€” Ζ‰ΓΈn Δ΄uan Harass 16:26, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

People use the Discord's voice chat feature? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:41, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Well, perhaps not on the RW 'cord. I do know it's becoming the chat of choice in a WoW session, at least for my guild. Takes too long to type "Get out of the goddamn fire, you idiot!", so being able to scream calmly say it is preferred.Kencolt (talk) 18:12, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Everyone should join the Discord, the link is on the mainpage. β€” Dysklyver 18:42, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
I used to be on that server, it was basically everything our opponents portray us to be. π”Šπ”¬π”žπ”±-π”ˆπ”ͺ𝔭𝔒𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔀𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔑𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔑𝔬π”ͺ/π”žπ” π”₯𝔦𝔒𝔳𝔒π”ͺ𝔒𝔫𝔱𝔰) 01:48, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Intelligent critics of pseudoscience and supporters of minority rights? β€” Dysklyver 01:57, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
The regressive left is heavy there, IMHO. Bunch o' fucking pricks and cowards. This one user there, @OnlySortaDumb/Dev is a fucking jackoff. Gets condescending and dismissive towards people who disagree with him, and then plays the victim whenever called out on his shit. β€” Ζ‰ΓΈn Δ΄uan Harass 10:01, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
TBF it's not all bad, there are some decent users there, but the bad one's there kind of ruin the experience. β€” Ζ‰ΓΈn Δ΄uan Harass 10:06, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, that's what ended up making me leave. Also Dev's been doing that since around the beginning. π”Šπ”¬π”žπ”±-π”ˆπ”ͺ𝔭𝔒𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔀𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔑𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔑𝔬π”ͺ/π”žπ” π”₯𝔦𝔒𝔳𝔒π”ͺ𝔒𝔫𝔱𝔰) 13:48, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
And Dev has the gall to call me a jerk, fucking hypocrite. β€” Ζ‰ΓΈn Δ΄uan Harass 15:13, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Are these people even members of the wiki? DuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 15:14, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Well now I am, I guess. DuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 15:23, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Apparently not being a dick is too hard of a task. Don't bother going there, complete waste of time. β€” Ζ‰ΓΈn Δ΄uan Harass 18:00, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
If the Discord is such a problem, why not make a new one (with only members from the wiki and less weebs) and get rid of the old one? Tinribmancer (talk) 21:46, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
I like this in theory, but I don't know how many people from this wiki would actually join a discord. It might end up being dead all the time. DuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 22:16, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
I hop in and out. So far, everyone's relatively nice and civil to me. Don't like or appreciate shit posting though. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 00:19, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

MAGA hat[edit]

Do you think this hat is a symbol of hate?

Make America Great Again hat (27150179783).jpg


  1. it clearly has become one. it represents the trump administration who have been stoking hate from the outset. you cant separate it from less egregious policies - its a package deal AMassiveGay (talk) 17:26, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
  2. Yes it is. Trump's recent tantrum has sealed the deal. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:31, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
  3. The implicit message is that America stopped being great due to the number of nonwhite immigrants who have come to this country and the evil leftists who sabotaged America. DuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 17:35, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
    Making factual statements about why your country is turning to shit isn't necessarily based on hate. It could be based on simply not wanting to live in a shitty Mexico/Pakistan tier country. Why is that "hateful"? Would you want to live there? (talk) 20:40, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
    And my point is now proven. DuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 21:37, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
  4. Complete list of non-racist people and things associated with the hat:
    ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:01, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
    America was never great, the hat is a lie Cardinal Chang (talk) 23:15, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
  5. Yes, continued support of the administration is either gross ignorance or outright hate. It means you are complicit with the crimes being allowed and committed at the border, gun violence at home, as well as the blatant anti-environmentalism going on as well as blatant anti-democratic practices such as slandering journalists and voter suppression. You're on the same camp as those that gleefully harass minorities including women, LGBT+, blacks, Latinos, Asians, Native Americans, religious minorities, atheists, and more. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 00:17, 23 January 2019 (UTC)


  1. No, it's a gadget of the 2016 presidential campaign of the current US president. Saying that it is a symbol of hate is an attempt to demonize all Donald Trump's electors and supporters. Thinker(unlicensed) 17:22, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
    if trump supporters arnt dreadful racists they shouldnt be trump supporters. you could maybe have given them the benefit doubt early on, but now? they are either racists or support a racist - the end results the same - support for racist policies. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:32, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
    My liking of Trump actually started to die the middle of 2018 but I was in denial. Realized 2 months ago that I could not stand the guy. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:48, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
    @AMassiveGay Trump was voted by 62.9 million Americans (click), including 600 thousand Blacks and 1.9 million Latinos (click). Are you really claiming that those people are "dreadful racists"? Thinker(unlicensed) 17:52, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
    if they still support trump and happy to don maga caps - yes. there are no excuses now - we know what hes about (it was clear from the outset, but maybe they thought it was all rhetoric to get the vote) if they arnt dreadful racists they should have the balls to disavow trump. as i clearly said, and you ignored, still supporting trump amounts to same thing as supporting racist policies. its a package deal you cant separate them out AMassiveGay (talk) 18:06, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
    and lets put those figures in context - that amounts to 8% of black americans and 29% of hispanic americans not quite so impressive when put like that 88% and 65% voted hilary (but this has nowt to do with her)AMassiveGay (talk) 18:16, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
    You can be a minority and support policies and people that hurt minorities, and you will still be rightfully called an -ist. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 00:42, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
    It is not an attempt to demonize Trump supporters, to call signs of their support of Trump symbols of hate. They are attempts to shame his supporters. I am sympathetic to the notion that shaming doesn't work well on crowds. A human is intelligent, a crowd can be, and usually is, quite stupid. There is no question the Trump campaign and administration are among the most corrupt in US history. He is verbally and financially dishonest ( see Trump University, the Trump Foundation, et al). Literally nothing Trump says can be taken at face value. He is at least a pro-crypto racist. I presume most who frequent this page would say I am letting him off easy.Ariel31459 (talk) 18:07, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
    @Ariel31459 I kinda agree with you there. Trump is the type of guy who hides behind vague wording though someone can tell it is still racist. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
  2. Nope. --RWRW (talk) 18:00, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
    goingwith the party line again, i see. bravo AMassiveGay (talk) 18:19, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
    Did a bit of formatting editing so it appears correctly. β„•oir LeSable (talk) 19:17, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
  3. Nope Commie Lib (talk) 21:47, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
  4. MAGA is a bullshit buzzphrase which makes me cringe. However, perhaps in the future it will be clearly associated with hateful ideologies/policies but for now, it's just a moronic phrase based on ignorance and naivetΓ© like when stupid shit is said, they're usually wearing that hat. But then all Lions are mammals doesn't mean all mammals are lions. At the moment now, no, I think comparing these stupid hats with burning crosses is overdoing it. ShabiDOO 22:14, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
    i would argue that the association with trump makes already a symbol of hateful ideologies/policies. its muddied any possible 'innocent/naive' usage. i would agree though comparisons to burning crosses and the like is a bit much. in spite of ikanreed's list below, its so ubiquitous that its usage can be unthinkingly casual, while the latter requires more concerted forethought. its not quite a swastika. yet.AMassiveGay (talk) 00:59, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
  5. No more than a Black Lives Matter t-shirt is a pro-cop killer statement. nobs piss in my ear 00:37, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
    Nobs is expressing his racism again. Yawn. Bongolian (talk) 03:13, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
    Hey, why don't you go fuck yourself with a banana. nobs piss in my ear 05:23, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Actual substantiating evidence that yes, it means hate[edit]

The following are intended to highlight the assertion that it is reasonable and sensible for persecuted minorities to treat MAGA hats as a direct threat to life and limb, and regardless of intent of the wearer represents an symbol of hate sufficiently recurrent as to be treated as such immediately.

There's dozens more incidents like these ones. You can't just hand wave this kind of trend away with "nope". ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:35, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

So the same association argument proves Islam is an ideology of hate. Oh wait that only works for whites. (talk) 20:34, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
The definition of "hate" now is anything contradicting anti-whites. Actually all negative words now have this definition. Bigotry, intolerance, etc. The original meanings have been lost amidst the screeching. (talk) 20:29, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Lol, no, it's the same thing that makes burning a cross a racist symbol, nothing that ever happens in association with it is not racist, ever. And lacks the centuries upon centuries of complex and peaceful culture that, you know, makes you wrong about everything. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:52, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
A burning cross is a different symbol which is explicitly racist moron, i.e. not the same. And we were discussing whether it's "hate". Now it's whether it's "racist". Try to stick with one meaningless undefined epithet. I can understand how you get confused about basic logic when deploying your mind-fucking anti-white logic warps. (talk) 20:58, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Oh, really, it's "explicitly" a racist symbol? Would you say that explicitness comes from the intrinsic nature of wood shaped into a cross? The use of fire? No wait, those are dumb and unconnected. Sr maybe it's a history inextricably tied to its near-exclusive use by hate movements, with deeply racist messages, and connected violence? And that large numbers of organized hate-movements marched under it? Hmm. Yes, that's exactly the same as MAGA hats. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:23, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't known if it's worth replying to you, since I bet you'll probably answer by "Stop being the dumbest fucker possible" or something similar, as you did many times before, instead of trying to have a conversation...
Anyway, I'll say to you just this: If you think that dozen of acts of violence and hate done by people wearing a MAGA hat imply that the MAGA hat should be considered a symbol of hate, then you have to conclude that essentially all the religious symbols and all the country flags (for example) should be considered symbols of hate. If you try to rectify this reasoning by adding that religious symbols and country flags should be excluded because they were also used in non-hateful contexts, then you should take into account the 62.9 million of Trump voters that are not committing any act of violence/hate and then conclude that the MAGA hat is not a symbol of hate. Thinker(unlicensed) 21:44, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
"Think of all those men marching in hoods who didn't actually participate in the lynching" is not the profound counterargument you think it is. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:51, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Surprise surprise[edit]

It can be both innocuous and a symbol of hate. Things can mean different things to different people and in different situations. Sort of reminds me of certain gendered Islamic headgear and varyingly offensive to largely harmless uses of the word "fag" (e.g. for a cigarette). (talk) 00:58, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

not quite. an asscociation with some generally unpleasant things can override any possible innocent usage of something. your other examples depend much more on context and the prevailing culture. for example, as britisher, if you offered me a fag, i'd say ta very much, but if you called me a fag, id push a glass in your face, where as i doubt anyone would wear a swastika if they disproved of genocide but sure do love an autobahn. the dreadful associations are still the primary focus regardless of any good you can contrive. AMassiveGay (talk) 01:27, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Hinduism and (especially Japanese) Buddhism often use swastikas, you know. Maybe more problematic is how Hitler paraphernalia are sorta popular in India. Though most of it is pretty non-serious. (talk) 02:01, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Interesting piece of astronomy news[edit]


Meteorite hits the moon during the lunar eclipse. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:29, 22 January 2019 (UTC)


Just a polite notice to everyone here, who puts either abbreviations and/acronyms in any of the stories in β€œWhat is going on in the world?”, or any other such part. Unless it is a very well-known such as ISIS, U.S. or NATO for example, please don’t put such acronyms or abbreviations in such titles first as someone like me can get confused. You may put it fully out the first time and then out the acronym to save on space. I got confused with UNC in a title, when it later referred it to the University of North Carolina, to someone who is not American that was confusing. This also includes postal state or county abbreviations such as CA (California), MO (Missouri), MA (Massachusetts), Oxon (Oxfordshire), Glocs (Gloucestershire) and Lancs (Lancashire). Remember, we are NOT all an American audience! Euromec (talk) 20:10, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Plain disagree, you might have a case with UNC, in particular, and then only maybe, but who doesn't know what the IDF is? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:55, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
I have no idea what IDF is. "International defense foundation"? And i never would have guessed what UNC is. If people not from America say they are confused by American acronyms, there is nothing to agree or disagree with. It can be frustrating. As a courtesy to the many many non-American readers here, spending those extra seconds spelling out an acronym is appreciated. ShabiDOO 21:57, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
IDF is the Israeli Defense Force. DuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 22:15, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
the context of the wigo made the idf one seem pretty clear, to me at least - the case for most wigos. i guess what people are going to recognise is going to vary per acronym per individual. we're not all yanks but i believe the majority are - kinda have to take it as read that some of us might have to google something once in a while. that goes the for yanks not recognising more brit centric stuff or from other locales. UNC? i dont think context would have helped there, prior knowledge/interest in the subject would have been requiredAMassiveGay (talk) 00:41, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
You know what they say, the longer route ends up being the shortest way home. I say you should expand abbreviations, it'll just make it easier for everyone in the long run, barring a few exceptions like NATO and NASA. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 00:48, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
thats thing though isnt it. 'everyone knows what this is' except they might not. somethings are only obvious if you are already invested in a particular subject, but if you start spelling everything out its starts to look condescending or convoluted - thats why we have acronym in the first place. i realise you had nato as an exception, but as an example, can you imagine spelling out north atlantic treaty organsiation everytime? you'd have more folk googling that than you would nato. context and a thought to the usual audience should be enough to inform when you need a full definition or acronym. im sure if somethings genuinely obscure ive no doubt someone would say something or make a helpful edit. hell, if i have to google something, i might actually take note of something i ordinarily would glance at, decide it doesnt interest me and ignore. AMassiveGay (talk) 01:15, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Deleted a bunch of redirects[edit]

Some new user created an article for "Korephillia" which alleged a variant of lesbian pedophilia that was "controversial". I was bothered by the article itself, but when new socks regged in order to create redirects to it and edit articles to link to it in weird ways, it set off alarm bells of being some kind of wandal stunt. I've deleted the pages, and if anyone can think of a reason why that was wrong of me, feel free to restore. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:15, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

My bad; that was me. My connection tends to be intermittent sometimes so resulting in time-outs on my side. But I'm not a vandal or anything and I didn't write it in a manner that sanctioned it; I specifically described it as a paraphilia in the first line, as in it is something abnormal. Tharaghludazedb (talk) 20:49, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Forgive me if I'm being unfair and demanding an explanation, but why would a connection being flaky require 3 different accounts? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:54, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
When you're logged out you have to remember you're old password. I don't plan to continue to be an editor so I just typed in random characters. I was lucky to log into this account after trying the others. Tharaghludazedb (talk) 21:01, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough, I guess I was overzealous. I'll restore the article, though my reservations about it remain. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:06, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
@Tharaghludazedb If you can't remember your password, then why don't you just click the "forgot password" link? And what's with your fixation on this... Korephilia? Just curious. --Goatspeed. Watch meCircularReasoningSee my latest prototypes 22:41, 22 January 2019 (UTC)


Aren't we going to end up with an edit war from his "broarmy", just like with ShoeOnHead?

Also, if he gets a page, then I think Onision & LeafyIsHere should get one too. (talk) 21:40, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I forgot I wasn't logged in. Tinribmancer (talk) 21:41, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, Leafy might have enough assholery that it could fill a page, although he is not particularly relevant at the moment unlike PewDiePie. β€”Dorianha Bogelund (talk) 21:50, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I checked the talk page and about the amount of subs he has (80 mil.); according to a video I found 3 years ago (when he was at 58 mil.), the main reason why he has that many was due to an Algorhythm problem or something that the Youtube staff said. I could look up the video about this, since this youtuber has a few vids about him and sounds a bit like a PewDiePie fanboy (he gets upset about the WSJ thing in one vid and in another about The Sun's article even though he also mentions that The Sun is Satire...) Tinribmancer (talk) 02:01, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

The impact of dreams (the sleep kind)[edit]

Having a good or bad dream can affect the rest of my day, and subsequent days. Scary dreams are very realistic and legitimately scary, even when realizing the absurdity of such. Other dreams are fun and can fill a void, like doing something impossible like flying. Lucid dreaming is the eighth wonder but I only experience it on rare occasion. Whenever we can implant dreams Γ  la Inception, we should use it for good instead of evil (of course, that won't happen). Do you dream, and if so, what are the typical topics? How much does it affect your waking life? β€”Dorianha Bogelund (talk) 22:06, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Dunno, whenever I dream something depressing, it only impacts the first few hours when I wake up. Afterward, I just write it off as a dream. Lucid dreaming occurs actually pretty frequently for me, especially when I recognize the recurring elements in my dreams such as buying desirable merchandise (in my dream, I'm like "i'm going to lose this as soon as I wake up) or foreseeing what's going to happen in the dream. Frightening dreams do play in my phobias, but dreams of, say, natural disasters are often really exaggerated than in real life, like those dreams about tornadoes I often get (tornadoes don't even occur where I live, so my brain essentially makes up their behavior; after watching real life tornado videos, they behave absolutely nothing than in my dream). Π‘aΠ±yΠ›uigiOΠ½Π€ire(T|C) 23:03, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
i get stabbed a lot in the dreams that i remember. doesnt have much impact on the next day though. i did have a dream quite recently after which i couldnt decide if it was something that actually happened or not. that was a bit disturbing. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:10, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
I am constantly in some kind of school when I dream. Other times my dreams are religious in nature. Other times I am attacked by giant spiders. The rarest dreams are when I die. As for death dreams it can range from simple stabbings, getting shot in the head, heart attack, stroke, eaten by rats, my innards being ripped out and being eaten alive by zombies. With most of my death dreams, I can feel the physical pain. One time I had the dream of being eaten by rats, I could physically feel their teeth sinking into my flesh which included my testicles. That hurt beyond description. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:44, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
they are generally just stress dreams of some description. people read too much into them or want to at least. they usually signify nothing. if you are continually have nightmares or sleep paralysis, the specifics of the dream are less important than the fact you having in such bad dreams in the first place. i can usually tell when i am due some disrupted - mine are usually a result drug usage and the results few days of insomnia. and if you like puff - you probably wont dream at all, but if you stop for a bit - expect a few nights of very vivid dreams. AMassiveGay (talk) 01:53, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
I just take my psychiatric medicine, I don't pop them like candy. Wish I could take less medicine. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 02:45, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
That sounds awful, Rationalzombie, I'm sorry you experience that. β€”Dorianha Bogelund (talk) 03:09, 23 January 2019 (UTC)