Information icon.svg Nominations and campaigning for the RationalWiki 2020 Moderator Election are completed. Voting is live now, until 20:00 UTC, 1 December!

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.
Spit.gif For previous conversations see the automagic barchives. Icon beer yellow.gif

What is going on?

The Bar
(talk) (talk) (talk) (talk) (*cough*) (hic)

Pointless poll

Who did you vote for in this year's moderator elections?

Rockford the Roe0Vote
Goaty McGoatface3Vote
Anarchism would work; NO MORE MODS1111!!!oneoneelventy11one!!111one!!!11!!4Vote
They all suck3Vote
I haven't voted yet2Vote
I'm ineligible to vote (new/not enough edits yet)6Vote

What is your opinion of Anonymous user?

They are the best thing for this wiki!17Vote
I am a bit friendly with them, pretty decent person1Vote
They are alright, I guess, never had a problem with them0Vote
I don't like them, but I have a grudging respect for them0Vote
Their posts usually make my eyes roll, but I get on with my life3Vote
Ugh, that person is super annoying2Vote
That user is terrible and should feel terrible8Vote
I prefer a goat13Vote

Are you a graduate of a fundie college/university?

Yes (Undergraduate/certificate)4Vote
Yes (Graduate/doctoral)2Vote
No (Never went)29Vote
No (took a few classes)1Vote

Do people actually take these polls seriously?

These polls are RIGGED by the army of Russian and CP trolls!4Vote
NO ONE REFUSES THE CABAL! (there isn't one)0Vote
This is IrrationalWiki!1Vote
This is Ratwiki!0Vote
Anarchy works!3Vote

Are Rationalwiki pointless polls fraudulent?

These polls are a HOAX!3Vote
Yes, as Soros commands.4Vote
I personally threw out Trump votes in Pennsylvania. 12Vote
The Central Election Commission of Belarus assures you that these polls are free and fair.3Vote
Rudy Giuliani will get to the bottom of this!6Vote
выборы были свободными и справедливыми. ха-ха!8Vote
This dispute clearly shows that User:DuceMoosolini should decide our opinions for us.8Vote
Anarchism would definitely work!4Vote

Do you think SCOTUS will be deciding on a 2020 election-related case?

SCOTUS will decide on a 2020 election case, but it won't be in favor of Trump.2Vote
SCOTUS will decide on a 2020 election case, but it will be in favor of Trump.3Vote
SCOTUS will not decide on a 2020 election case, but if they did, it wouldn't be in favor of Trump.10Vote
SCOTUS will not decide on a 2020 election case, but if they did, it would be in favor of Trump.5Vote
Rudy Giuliani will manage to embarass himself in front of SCOTUS.22Vote
Trump's spawnWikipedia will embarass both him and themselves in front of SCOTUS.3Vote
SCOTUS will not besmirch their reputation by ruling in Trump's favor; even Abortion Lady and Brett Kavanaugh don't owe him shit, as they'll be on the bench till long after the Donald passes.8Vote

Would Anarchism Work?

It's the best possible system4Vote
There's a possibility of it producing a good society, but there are better systems out there6Vote
In some specific situations, it's workable, but not for the general public9Vote
It's a pipe dream for young fools that haven't learned any better46Vote
I personally have reported all anarchist activity to the police1Vote
Don't tell me what to do!!!2Vote
This is just trolling7Vote
Might work for goats11Vote
I personally have reported all anarchist activity to the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Affairs, because the government bourgeoisie made me do it1111!!!oneoneelventy11one!!111one!!!11!!3Vote
To do list


On Human Nature[edit]

The analytical discourse deployed for the above description is a mere physiological one. Even that has a huge problem, as it leaves out the flexibility, plasticity and constant transformations of human physiology produced by cultural insiders/agents. Heterotrophy is debated in cultures where cannibalism used to be or still is (ritually) a norm. The analogy between physiology, which is nothing more than that, with sociocultural factors that reflect back to the physical structures the results of agency, is completely flawed. Also, "spoken language" is not a universal condition, given that there are humans who cannot speak. Also, positive/negative stimuli are not something given, but something always in the making of of active cultural agents. The description is so generic that fails to recognize all the grey zones that make up the subjective human experience what it is, therefore it says so little about anything that could be described as "human nature". I personally do not buy any singular, grand scheme. I can compromise with "human natures" though, on the basis of Margaret Lock's concept of "local biologies."

This was written in response to this trite by a certain BoN here:

Human nature is the set of traits typical of humans in general. To begin with the cladistic definition, humans are mobile multicellular eukaryotic heterotrophs with a notochord and dorsal nerve cord, a backbone and jaws, endothermy and mammary glands, prehensile hands with opposable thumbs and flattened nails, shoulders with a wide degree of motion and no tail, bipedal locomotion, and a gracile skeleton with a rounded braincase and projecting chin. I went into that detail on the physical nature of humans to make it obvious that humans are a very particular sort of thing. The same applies to human psychology. Humans are very far from blank slates (a blank slate would be like something like a computer with no operating system, BIOS, or other firmware, and would just sit there inert), and come loaded with all sorts of instincts and drives. As with anatomy, there is individual variation, but there are general traits, particularly as expressed in group social interactions. Humans are hardwired to make and use spoken language, to pursue various positive stimuli, and avoid various negative stimuli. The details of these are the subject of fields such as psychology, sociology, political science, and economics.

I rest my case. Oxyaena Harass 10:44, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
And philosophically, one should always be cautious of investing too much certainty into the term "typical" because "types" of all kinds are inherently a result of our own subjective analysis, and lack any metaphysical realness. I guess there's some extreme edge cases that could be argued like types of fundamental particles, and types of elements and so on. But if you follow core the logic hard enough "What's human nature?" gets answered by "Characteristics of a human" and "What's a human" gets answered with "thing with human characteristics", naturally begging the question. I blame Aristotle. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:05, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@Oxyaena As best as I can tell, you're choosing to take a stand on the following two propositions:

  1. Human nature is determined by society, not the other way around.
  2. There are certain commonalities exhibited by human societies across time and space, but ... these aren't (caused by) anything innate (in humans themselves).

Is this a fair characterisation, or do you wish to clarify further?

As ikanreed points out, human nature is not well defined. Do you have a working definition you're happy to stick with, for the purposes of argument? If so, let's have it.

Finally, I'm pretty sure this is just a round-the-houses exercise to get to something like:

  1. "Human nature" is a mere product of societal structures and influences, and not an innate aspect of humans themselves.
  2. Therefore, "human nature" can not be regarded as an impediment to the establishment of my ideal (insert utopian adjectives here) society.

Apologies if your reasoning is less motivated, and you're actually tilting at this particular windmill in good faith. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 19:51, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

That "human nature" is not well defined should surprise no one. Many words describing human behaviors are generic and lack specificity. Asking for specifics about a category that is not expected to be exact, i.e., scientific, is no better than an intellectual exercise. I'm not complaining, we all need to exercise. What should be part or a subspecies of human nature? Love perhaps? Not all people seem capable of it, certainly. But can we say love is an occasional behavior sometimes expressed by humans? Every so-called race, or as I prefer it, people from everywhere in the world are able to express love for others, regardless of culture or social traditions. We are not taught to be fond of family members, animal companions, friends who have been helpful comrades through our lives. We grieve when they are lost to us. No one teaches us to sorrow in the anguish of personal loss. I regret the hardships of others, unknown to me, but I don't feel them as if they were my own. Part of human nature? Perhaps. It's difficult to say.Ariel31459 (talk) 20:18, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
I don't disagree. I'm just loath for the goalposts to suddenly become a basketball hoop mid-discussion. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 20:26, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Much of this boils down to a disagreement about what “nature” is without actually addressing the definition I gave above. The nature of a particular species is not the set of traits that all members of that species possess without exception, it’s the set of traits that are typical of that species. Cats typically have four legs, fur, and a tail about two-thirds the length of the rest of the body, though not every single individual cat does. But apart from e.g. breeds bred for lack of fur, a lack of fur, legs, or tail represents an atypical condition, as due to injury, developmental abnormality, or some such. When speaking of the nature of cats, such conditions are typically set aside apart from a statistical description of various abnormalities. Domestic cats live in much the same societies that humans do (young children, at least), yet they don’t acquire human language, pass the mirror test, or gain opposable thumbs. Because their nature is different from that of humans.
I’m focusing most of the attention and details on physiological nature because that’s easy to see by just looking at things. Acknowledging that such a thing as the nature of a species exists, and that humans have one, is best grounded in such unambiguous topics as physiology. We can discuss psychology after coming to terms with there being actual facts in this matter.
As for the more detailed content there, the physical nature of humans includes various responses to environmental conditions. Childhood nutrition is a strong influence on various developmental processes, for example. What did you mean by “Heterotrophy is debated in cultures where cannibalism used to be or still is (ritually) a norm.”? All humans without exception are heterotrophs.
As for “human nature” often being described with generic terms, that comes with the territory of the people making the descriptions being humans themselves. It’s kind of a “how do fish talk about the ocean” situation. That doesn’t mean that there isn’t clear, empirical information to be had. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 23:49, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure physiology is going to shed much useful light on the clear line that can be traced from, say, the Sulawesi cave paintings to Rothko's Seagram Murals. If you're in a more lowbrow mood, we can talk about the line we can draw from any amount of Roman bathhouse graffiti to the TITCH LVS BOGRAT '04 I once saw scrawled on the back of a bus seat. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 02:40, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
The things you mentioned were all done by anatomically and behaviorally modern humans. Obviously it’s possible to draw parallels between different societies composed of the same sort of being. As I mentioned, I’ve been mostly focusing on physiology because of how obvious the existence of a physiological human nature is. Psychological human nature is subtle enough that there are serious blank slate advocates. It’s not reasonable, but they exist, and dealing with that unreasonableness is better done once the existence of some sort of human nature is admitted. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 11:47, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Well, you pursue your strategy and I'll pursue mine. Both may be moot anyway as it looks like @Oxyaena is just waiting for this thread to disappear into the archives. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 13:51, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
The very notion of a "singular human nature" is an artificial construct, one that has no bearing on actual, flesh and blood, living beings. Oxyaena Harass 16:36, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@Oxyaena OK. Then explain how such radically different societies can produce the identical artistic urges we see expressed by the Sulawesi cave paintings, Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel ceiling, and Rothko's Seagram Murals. Good luck! Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 18:29, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

“The very notion of a "singular human nature" is an artificial construct” Every notion without exception is an artificial construct. That’s what notions are. That doesn’t prevent them from corresponding to things in the real world. There is a lump of atoms in front of me, and while the fundamental physics are rather simple, it's useful to consider that those atoms are a "cat" that is sitting on my "lap".
“one that has no bearing on actual, flesh and blood, living beings” Every human without exception is a heterotroph. Food is rather important to humans. Needing food is a part of human nature. You can define human nature out of existence if you want, but that has no bearing on what others actually use the term for, which refers to a real thing. We can play taboo if you want. What is it that you’re arguing against humans having? Keep in mind that you just implied above that human nature includes flesh and blood. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 03:18, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
@Helena Bonham Carter The content depicted by the paintings are completely separate, the reasons for the paintings of Sulawesi are not known, we cannot know key cultural factors. The fact that people draw is an overgeneralization, people draw for reasons, and often the content of a painting is determined by cultural factors. A hunter gatherer is gonna draw things relevant to them, as is Michelangelo. Those relevant things happen to be very different from each other, the notion of a singular human nature is too reductionist and ignores cultural plasticity and fluidity. Oxyaena Harass 05:53, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@Oxyaena Who gives a fuck about the content of the paintings? It's the striking commonality of the behaviour that's significant, stretching from the dawn of civilisation right through to the modern period. We both know there's an almost inexhaustible supply of data points to add to the line I'm drawing here. You want some Turner? Some Rublev? Some Aboriginal rock art?

Now, I say there's something inherent in humans that leads some of us to make visual representations of the world around us, and causes most of the rest of us to feel some kind of response to those representations. I don't need to explain the mechanisms behind it all, because I can point to the weight of evidence and reasonably infer that something human-related must be going on here, whatever you want to call it.

You, on the other hand, have explicitly denied that such "commonalities exhibited by human societies across time and space" have anything to do with "innate" qualities of humans themselves, and have further stipulated that it's "society" that has all the relevant explanatory power. In which case, start fucking explaining, man.

Out of sympathy for the obvious handicap of your batshit ideological motivations here, I'll point out that you don't need to explain exactly how a given society produces a given piece of art, but you do need to explain how such radically different societies can produce such strikingly similar art making / appreciation behaviours if you are eliminating humans themselves as the determinant common factor. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 14:32, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

The cultural factors are very relevant here, did you read anything I said? What commonality is there besides a very basic and overgeneralizing "people draw things?" What specifically is that inherent something I want specific details. What specific neurological substrate causes one to "draw things?" How can you just arbitrarily ignore key cultural factors here and pretend they have no relevance? You're assuming there's something essential to humanity, this reads to me like bullshit vitalism, of the same substance as that "humans have souls." Essentialism is no different than vitalism, they both claim there is a nonapparent "essence" to humanity that one cannot immediately see, something extra to us, ie something that is extranatural, or supernatural. Oxyaena Harass 18:03, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Drawing requires symbolic thought, to quote a friend:
Drawing is not a skill on its own, it's an abstract, an "assemblage". You need representations that signify something, ergo you need symbolic thought which has no other codifications beyond sociocultural settings. — My friend.

Symbolic thought is demonstrably not just limited to Homo sapiens, Homo erectus and Neanderthals too have been found to possess symbolic thought. And the neurological substrates for symbolic thought are found deeper within the animal kingdom. Drawing encodes complex symbolic representation, reducing all of this to some vaguely defined notion of a "human essence" denies reality, and is too overly reductionist. Oxyaena Harass 18:08, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Symbolic thought refers to pre-linguistic thought. The difference between humans and other species is not only that humans and their near relatives can represent their own thoughts to others. They also have the cognitive ability to recognize the representations. There is a gap in natural abilities between a chimpanzee and a modern human. Many of the differences are in degree. Many animals are like humans, or become attractive to humans because of the emotions they evoke, and they are collected as pets in human society. In certain ways they are like us. In other ways we are able to make them more like us, especially dogs and sometimes cats. But I don't see any alternative to the explanation that it is human nature to which a dog becomes habituated, most likely through breeding.
Now art is an entirely different matter. Aesthetic representations are for their own sake. This last summer, while collecting field stone in my back yard I noticed that some of them appeared to be painted with black and red pigments unnatural to the rocks in the area. The native American Red Paint People were supposed to have been located in an area very close to my state. But they had disappeared from New England at least three thousand years ago. I collected a number of surface artifacts that astonished me. Many stones had figural carvings and were not at all primitive art with regard to technique. One stone had the head of an American cave lion carved into it. Another stone was an effigy of a shark. Yet another was a scene depicting a large bear carved into a schist with mica reflectively representing bees, with one paw covering its nose and the other reaching for honey comb. The quality of the representation reminded me of 20th century juvenile book illustration. I was amazed at the variety of style and quality in these carvings. I thought, "how like me, the mind of this artist had been. Soon it was like I felt I was talking to myself. I knew what The People were doing there, living in that place now called "Great Hill" in Algonquin. Soon I felt I could feel their presence, as I assembled the grave goods scattered by the brook on my rural property. Sometimes I find myself trembling a bit looking at what they have shown me about themselves, even though they had vanished forever so very long ago. Now that's what I call art! Ariel31459 (talk) 19:37, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
@Ariel31459 Dang. This'll be the first time I've ever typed "cool story" and meant it sincerely. Cool story, man. I feel a bit guilty now about lowering the tone back down to internet slapfight, but anyway...
@Oxyaena So, to be clear, your considered opinion on the subject is now:
  1. Human nature is determined by society, not the other way around.
  2. I have nothing substantive to say on how this works, and fuck you for asking.
Shit, man, that's me convinced. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 20:04, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
If you have a society that encourages selfishness and competition, people are more inclined to be selfish and competitive. If you have a society that encourages selflessness and cooperation, people are more likely to be selfless and cooperative rather than selfish and competitive. Case in point: [1] Also, Ariel, I don't think you understand what the term "symbolic thought" means, and that shit about the "North American cave lion" more likely reflects a mountain lion than an animal that's been extinct since long before the Red Paint people existed. Oxyaena Harass 06:04, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
@Oxyaena You are not wrong about "symbolic thought" and language. I should have written "primitive or a priori symbolic thought". Ones personal understanding is a metaphysical assumption. Also, the period of the Red Paint People not overlapping with the supposed extinction date of the cave lion was known to me and suggested that the RPP culture preserved memories of those creatures through their art. Whoever their ancestors were, they certainly encountered such creatures. In addition, I have found images of a mastodon and even a tiger. Not enough is known of the RPP for any authoritative judgement such as you have offered, add the fact that you have not seen the images. The speculation is that they are in fact the RPP, not that the images tell a different story than the one I have told.Ariel31459 (talk) 18:47, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
@Oxyaena Are you for real? It's like you can barely be arsed to hand wave anymore. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 14:56, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
It's okay, stick to your religious dogma about human nature for now, I don't care. You can be spooked all you want. Oxyaena Harass 16:55, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@Oxyaena I'm more than happy for this discussion to enter the permanent record as is. It follows a depressingly familiar pattern for you:

Oxyaena: <extended riff on dumb shit>

Interlocutor: rly?

Oxyaena: <bald assertion of dumb shit>

Interlocutor: <relevant counterexample>

Oxyaena: <spurious dismissal of counterexample>

Interlocutor: <detailed explanation of counterexample & how it conflicts with dumb shit>

Oxyaena: <furious hand-waving>

Interlocutor: That was just hand-waving.

Oxyaena: <more hand-waving>

Interlocutor: Please stop hand-waving.

Oxyaena: You're not the boss of me. I retire undefeated!

At some point soon, you'll burn right through whatever little credibility you have left round here. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 17:43, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Read this. Oxyaena Harass 20:15, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
@Oxyaena Read this (again) and develop your own fucking arguments, you clown. I know it's difficult - that's the whole fucking point of the art counterexample. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 20:37, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
When I google "John Danaher" I keep coming up with a martial artist. Apparently very famous. The John Danaher you refer to is also a philosopher. I don't want to assume he's been hit in the head more than usual. Identifying what might be meant by Human Nature is not a philosophical question that can be teased apart from empirical science. Ariel31459 (talk) 22:32, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
As much as I'd love that to be true, this is the Danaher you're looking for. Writes extensively on AI and sexbots, so obviously a go-to source for questions re. human nature. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 00:24, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Oh. A discussion on human behavior and psychology? Without me? Disappointing. So, to address this premise "If you have a society that encourages selfishness and competition, people are more inclined to be selfish and competitive. If you have a society that encourages selflessness and cooperation, people are more likely to be selfless and cooperative rather than selfish and competitive.", this is, tragically, too abstract and simplistic. People are driven by material needs, personal values, environmental stimuli, and personality traits. This means they grow up with a sort of half formed personality, such as a need for food or water, as well as certain behavioral inclinations such as an interest in books, building, or physical exercise, that slowly accumulates input from outside the mind, such as language, gestures, customs, and their meanings. What this means is that while we have a "self", it is never truly fully formed, and will shift to various extents (on a case by case basis) throughout life based on what it encounters and "ingests" for lack of a better term. We'll consciously or subconsciously seek to emulate certain behaviors we associate with different things. Now. I know, I know. That's all very interesting, but what's that have to do with "human nature"? Well, that is human nature. Even in an ideal world, people will still act selfish and competitive, because they'll perceive reasons for doing so. Now, clearly I think we can do better, but I also think we should be realistic. People will behave as they always have, the only difference is to what degree, and in what manner. After all, even the worst capitalist doesn't want to live in a hellish wasteland. There's no altruism in that desire, simply self interest. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:51, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
This is good and all, but it ignores and/or downplays the effect culture has on the individual. We do not grow up in a vacuum. People who grow up in hunter-gatherer societies are much more cooperative with their fellows than someone who grows up in a complex society such as the US. Hoarding is viewed as a crime by many band level societies, sometimes even on par with or worse than murder. I am not denying the role self interest plays in all this, hell, I`m a fucking Stirnerite. My point throughout all of this has been that humanity is much more complex and nuanced than saying "communism fails because of human nature" or insert thought-terminating cliche about "human nature" here would allow for. Oxyaena Harass 10:31, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
No one here has argued that culture doesn't have effects on individuals. The point has been that humans have a particular nature rather than a blank slate, which means that cultures do not have free rein to shape their societies, but must work within the constraints of human nature. Attempting something that doesn’t work with human nature (like the labor theory of value) leads to problems when people don’t behave as they need to to make it work.
“humanity is much more complex and nuanced than saying "communism fails because of human nature"” The line that prompted this series of discussions was “And yes, the Soviet Union fell largely due to a catastrophic misunderstanding of human nature.” To approach this from a different angle, why do YOU think the Soviet Union fell? 192․168․1․42 (talk) 10:51, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Disregarding the LTOV, which I'll discuss another time (Adam Smith preferred it btw), the Soviet Union fell due to a variety of reasons. To attribute it to solely one factor is reductionist as fuck, and very fallacious. In short, you're committing the naturalist fallacy when you say that the USSR fell due to "human nature." Oxyaena Harass 11:53, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
“the Soviet Union fell due to a variety of reasons” Name one that you think was important.
“To attribute it to solely one factor” “when you say that the USSR fell due to "human nature."” You’re doing it again, when I just quoted and linked what I actually said right there. The Soviet misunderstanding of human nature led to various ineffective policies that led to various problems. It’s an underlying methodological deficiency, not a proximal cause. Respond to what I’ve actually said.
“In short, you're committing the naturalist fallacy” The naturalistic fallacy involves an argument of the form, “X is natural, therefore X is good.” I’ve been arguing in the form, “X naturally has traits A, B, and C, therefore basing a policy on the idea that X lacks trait A leads to problems.” You might want to re-read my posts and/or that article if you think that fallacy applies. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 12:21, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
@192․168․1․42 That's actually inaccurate. While yes, the USSR had foundational and structural problems, we can't ignore the fact that they were in a cold war with the US et al. While the effects of tariffs, espionage, embargoes, and spying was lessened due to both of the major players being superpowers, they were still in effect. Also there was that really stupid invasion of Afghanistan which was their equivalent of the Vietnam war. So, yes there were other factors in play beyond foundational and structural problems. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:42, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
“So, yes there were other factors in play” I never said there weren’t. But consider this: The US also had to deal with those things, yet it came out of the Cold war more prosperous and powerful than it had ever been. Why the difference? Why the sudden and profound differences between East/West Germany and North/South Korea? 192․168․1․42 (talk) 19:24, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
That's a bit of a stretch. The US during this same period had to grapple with a lot of internal social problems, which it never actually solved but instead kicked down the road, so to speak. So, peaceful no. Prosperous? By what metric? By the metric of the stock market? Job growth? Economic stability? What metric are you using here? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:34, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
I said "powerful", not "peaceful". And by the metrics of GDP, national wealth, and military capabilities. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 19:38, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
@192․168․1․42 Apologies, I apparently misread your comment. GDP and national wealth are good metrics for prosperity, I'll admit. I don't think military capacity is though. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:54, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Define prosperity, also I ask you this, BoN. When people are cold and poor, living on the streets, despite working three jobs, does that "national prosperity" matter to them? Are they "prospering;" living the American Dream? My friends had to stay in this fucking "bando," abandoned house, with bugs all over the place, in the dead of summer, where the only bedding they had was a fucking styrofoam box. Were they living the American Dream? Oxyaena Harass 22:41, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

@Oxyaena Look at yourself, man. This is the (depressingly familiar) point in the discussion where you abandon your batshit assertions (good) and pivot to a claim that you were arguing for something else entirely (bad, and chickenshit to boot). For extra wtf?, these pivots nearly always involve some appeal to your superior appreciation of nuance and / or complexity, which is especially galling given your customary refusal to engage with any of the nuance or complexity raised in objection to your original batshit claims.

Serious question: why should anyone take you the least bit seriously if this is how you choose to conduct yourself? Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 01:57, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

How is it batshit? Furthermore, appeals to "human nature" as if humanity is some kind of pre-programmed machine denies individuality. We are all unique, with our own life histories, our own experiences. Artificial constructs mean nothing to me, they have no bearing on actual, flesh and blood beings. You claim there is an essence to humanity, I object to your essentialism. It's quite frankly an updated vitalism. You claim to be "rational" yet you retain these artificial constructs, these "spooks," without examining them critically. Why is that? Oxyaena Harass 22:35, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
@Oxyaena If you could read worth a damn, you'd be aware I haven't made any specific claims about human nature. I have, however, consistently objected to your batshit claim that there's no such thing, and that any effects that might be attributed to it can be explained entirely by "society".
I've pointed to consistent art making / appreciation behaviours throughout history as evidence of something that could be reasonably attributed to human nature, and challenged you to explain that consistency in terms of radically different societies, as your batshit claim requires. Still waiting for any kind of substantive response. Get cracking or retract or shut the fuck up. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 23:01, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
I've already gave one, that given that we cannot possibly know what went through the heads of those creating said artworks unless they told us specifically, given the innumerable different factors involved that lead to the form, content, and even genesis of those artworks, that the human tendency to "draw stuff" isn't as good of an example as you think. Oxyaena Harass 19:18, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@Oxyaena Jesus tap dancing Christ. Are you actually capable of following any of your brainfarts through to their logical conclusion? Because you've just nuked most of our understanding of the historical record in your latest feeble attempt to avoid engaging with this counterexample.

This might come as news to you, but it is in fact vanishingly rare that historical evidence comes conveniently packaged with further information that "t[ells] us specifically" what to make of it. Are you proposing that all ancient artefacts should henceforth be relabelled as Damned if I know in the absence of such information? Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 01:25, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

That's pretty much the point. Oxyaena Harass 01:30, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
That's a dumb position. Clearly we can study context, read journals, seek out interviews or biographies. People don't exist in a bubble, they're interconnected. To say we can't know or that we should just put a question mark on all of it is mind blowingly absurd. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:37, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
That's only available for some of the artifacts in the archaeological record, I cannot possibly know the mindset of the people who created the Lascaux cave paintings for instance. This is actually a pretty common opinion in the field of anthropology. Is all of postmodernism a brainfart to you? And HBC, keep throwing ad homs my way, it's really cute when you do so. Oxyaena Harass 01:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Hell, HBC's argument that humans have a tendency to "draw things" is an indicator of human nature is about as good as the claim that it is human nature to construct pyramids, or to engage in farming. It's a shitty argument, and a large leap of logic to assume common factor x is proof of human nature. Not all societies engage in farming, is it human nature to farm? Oh, and go ahead, throw another ad hom at me while you're at it. Oxyaena Harass 01:49, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie I also didn't say that we "can't know anything or must put a giant question mark on it all." I was giving a specific critique of HBC's counterexample. He's putting words into my mouth I did not say. I expect more ad homs to ensue, oh, and HBC, please at least try to address my criticism above. Oxyaena Harass 01:55, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

@Oxyaena Address your critique? You've literally just invented hyperbolic historical doubt to avoid engaging with something ideologically inconvenient. My work here is done, kid. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 02:21, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I literally just pointed out that your argument that since art is a common factor amongst humans that it must be human nature is tantamount to declaring that farming must be human nature as well given how most societies today farm. For most of human history we didn't farm, and up until about 50kya we didn't really produce that much artwork either, but we were still human. See where I`m going with this? Oxyaena Harass 07:13, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
@Oxyaena tfw you want to appeal to the historical record you just blew up a few posts back. Fucking logic, how does that work?! Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 19:26, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Another ad hom. Not surprised. Oxyaena Harass 19:28, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
@Helena Bonham Carter
Wolf's head
I am uploading an item or two from the collection of artifacts I mentioned earlier, just so you know they exist. File: Wolf-head.jpg is up now if you are curious. I am using a ten dollar camera I bought on eBay, so it's really tough to get a good image. Ariel31459 (talk) 21:03, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
@Ariel31459 Thanks, man. Helluva find. I've tweaked your post to display the thumbnail - hope that's OK. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 21:31, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
And here you are running away again. Typical. Oxyaena Harass 08:20, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
@Oxyaena OK then, dickhead. If you insist on one last kamikaze run at your credibility, I'm more than happy to guide you in to target. So, with that in mind, is history a thing again or not? Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 00:12, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Artwork and human nature[edit]

To say that because artwork is a common feature of different cultures and therefore it must be proof of human nature is like saying because farming is a common feature of many different cultures it too must be proof of human nature, when we can prove that not all cultures engaged in farming, and for most of human history, up until circa 50kya, artwork wasn't very common either. Are we innately farmers, or artists? To deny that people prior to 10kya were humans is batshit. But what about people prior to the behavioral revolution? Weren't they human too?

Common factor x only proves that x is common, not that x is proof of something innate, essential, to human beings. Note that this isn't a critique of human nature as a whole, it's a critique of a specific argument brought up in favor of human nature. Whether or not human nature definitively exists is irrelevant to this entry, which is merely to highlight the logical problems of said argument.

Also, to address Ariel's fluff about the Red Paint people, I think, to use Occam's Razor, it requires fewer assumptions to assume your "cave lion" is really a panther than an animal that had been extinct for millennia beforehand. You should always be careful about making vast conclusions from half-vast data. No actual archaeologist would identify it as something so specific as the American lion, it's better to just describe it as a depiction of a "wild cat" and leave it at that.

This goes into my other argument, that given the innumerable factors involved in the form, content, and genesis of artworks, that is impossible to say for certainty what drove these ancient artists to create these artifacts in the first place. Your arguments that it must be "human nature" seem very religious to me in scope, with no justification other than "I can feel it."

Cue the ad homs. Oxyaena Harass 15:05, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

No ad homs here, but it might be better to say creativity if not artwork or agriculture is a human quality for the reasons you said, or that since we hit some threshold in the past that making art is human. Artificius (talk) 16:11, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
@Oxyaena This sounds awfully like history's a thing again. Would you care to confirm and explicitly retract your previous guff on the subject? Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 17:22, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
I never said that history is invalid, I said that it's near impossible to know for certain the motivations of artists when creating artwork back in prehistory and antiquity. At best we can only guess. That being said, you still haven't addressed my argument. Oxyaena Harass 18:05, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
And I'm not going to touch it until we're clear about the possibility of valid inferences from ancient artefacts. You want to duck the art counterexample using hyperbolic doubt? Knock yourself out, but that shit has consequences, and you do not get to appeal to a historical record that your logic negates. Pick your poison, man. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 18:20, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
I have nothing good to add.gifThe 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 talk stalk block 02:38, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Well, mission accomplished, man. Thanks for popping in. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 03:31, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Your "gotcha" argument is based off of a pointless bad faith misinterpretation of my original argument to begin with. Oxyaena Harass 16:10, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@Oxyaena "Bad faith" isn't an incantation that magically fixes your shitty logic. You attempted to deny any significant commonality of art making behaviour because we lack access to the artists' inner motivations. Well, guess what, man: we also lack that access for every ancient artefact that's ever been dug up, and yet we somehow still manage to draw all manner of reasonable inferences re. culture and patterns of behaviour from them. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 21:40, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

You really haven't read the anthropological and archaeological literature, have you? Oxyaena Harass 00:42, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
@Oxyaena Kid, you're an autodidact with poor higher reasoning skills, and whose ability to synthesize complex information has never even been tested in the very modest crucible of an undergraduate essay. There is literally nothing in the current anthropological / archaeological consensus opinion on methodology to save you here, but if you want to humiliate yourself further with some ultracrepidarian hot takes, then I'm certainly not going to stop you. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 04:34, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Well, I know a certain Greek anthropologist who would beg to differ with you. Oxyaena Harass 14:18, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
@Oxyaena Your riposte to the consensus opinion across an entire field is to invoke "a certain Greek anthropologist"?! You remember Project Steve, right? Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 22:57, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps you should read Against Method? As for artwork, you've still yet to respond to my argument, and @Ariel31459 has yet to acknowledge his faulty and amateurish "identification" of artifacts. Hell, that "wolf pendant" appears to me to be a fucking rock vaguely in the shape of a wolf's head. Pareidolia is a valid concern here. Oxyaena Harass 09:50, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
a cloudy American

Acknowledge what now? Ariel31459 (talk) 17:27, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Congratulations you uploaded another rock, conclusively identified without being vetted by an actual expert on North American archaeology. Bravo. Oxyaena Harass 19:07, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

@Ariel31459 She must've seen something she liked in Rudy's poop-flinging monkey act last night. It doesn't deserve further response, to be honest, but I've got plenty of popcorn if you decide to sally forth.

@Oxyaena We've been through this already. You don't have an argument until you admit the possibility of valid inferences from ancient artefacts in the absence of access to their creators' inner motivations. Almost everything you now want to say about hunting and farming over the course of ancient human history is dependent on the conclusions of people who had no access whatsoever to the inner motivations of the creators of the relevant artefacts. And, obviously, if their inferences and conclusions re. those artefacts are still valid without that access, then that chops the legs out from under your batshit attempts at hyperbolic doubt re. ancient artwork. Like I said six fucking days ago, pick your poison, man. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 19:19, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

@Helena Bonham Carter If you haven't noticed yet I have posted six images on my user page, with interpretive texts. I could post more than one hundred from our current site. I have a cheap camera and no real skill at photography. I think I'll keep at it as soon as I can make better photos.Ariel31459 (talk) 19:35, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, guys. Twodots (talk) 19:45, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
You're welcome? @Ariel31459 Cheers, man. I don't know how well it would work at this scale, but I've had decent results with holiday landscape shots by running them through imaging software. I had similar issues re. a cheap digi camera and no real photography skills, but playing around with the brightness, contrast and colour saturation really did wonders for photos which looked pretty flat & lifeless at first. It might help bring out some of the detail in your current set of pictures, and I'd also be tempted to experiment with reshooting your samples with the lighting from a variety of angles. Certain subtle features might benefit greatly from having the shadows falling in a particular direction for emphasis. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 20:48, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Good podcast[edit]

really enjoyable. — Unsigned, by: 2001:8003:59db:4100:9489:42a9:323f:eaf7 / talk / contribs


Intereseting demonyms from English speaking countries[edit]

Halagonian (Halifax) Glasswegian (Glassgow) Mancunian (Manchester) Oxonian (Oxford) Liverpudian (Liverpool) Sydneysider/Shannonsider (Sydney/Shannon) Joburger (Johannesburg) Limerickman (Limerick) Cantabrian (Christchurch) Ottawatonian/Corkonian (Ottawa/Cork) Vancouverite/Brisbanite (Vancouver/Brisbane)

I'm not including -er (Dubliner/Londoner/Bostoner/New Yorker) or slight variations on the -an such as -ian/-nian But I cannot find any strange ones in the United States. Anyone know of any? ShabiDOO 21:04, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Never thought I'd see Cork mentioned on here...Evilatheistheathen (talk) 11:16, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Michigander, Hoosier (indiana), Utahn (talk) 23:00, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Nutmegger (Connecticut; yeah, there really isn't any other demonym I know of). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:11, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
This might not qualify as a demonym since it also includes ethnic information, but "Minnewegian" for Norwegian Americans living in Minnesota. Artificius (talk) 23:29, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Skook (Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania), Yinzer (Pittsburgh) (talk) 01:28, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Jaffa - Aucklander Aloysius the Gaul 02:33, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

im surprised brummies from birmingham didnt get a mention. or vermin for people from essex. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:32, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

do people from birmingham, alabama get called brummies? AMassiveGay (talk) 10:33, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Floridian. 'Nuff said. CoryUsar (talk) 15:00, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Oh, Chipmunk (VT). CoryUsar (talk) 15:44, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Apparently people from Arkansas are known as Arkensawyers? Is this true? ShabiDOO 16:19, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I just call them rednecks-Hastur! (talk) 18:34, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Had to look it up. Scots-Irish make up 2% of Arkansas. That means California is more Redneck... CoryUsar (talk) 21:34, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Given it's a state most famous for a guy too stupid to fix his own roof, are you surprised they can't even redneck right? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:56, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes, let's all be classist assholes and mock some white trash for being less privileged than us down South. YEEHAH!!! Oxyaena Harass 20:10, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
I take it you've never heard Arkansas Traveler. I leave it to you to discern how serious it's meant to be taken. And if you want to shake it up a bit, here's a version on the shamisen. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:32, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Republicans won Alaska (Yeah, and Hillary won Washington State, but still lost.)[edit]

Give me work.[edit]

I want to be helpful, but I'm bad at writing articles. Any advice? Twodots (talk) 19:21, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Read some existing articles and if you find typos or miscalculations or something, fix them. It think my first mainspace edit was fixing a miscalculation in WW1 article. It's a good way to get familiar with editing process while also maybe getting an idea of what RationalWiki article should be like. Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 19:31, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
I'd like to fix typos, but I'm bad at finding them... Do you know of any specific articles that have lots of spelling errors? Twodots (talk) 19:48, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
If I'd know, I'd fix them myself. But I do come at them occasionally by chance. Look around.
Other than that, don't really know how to help here. Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 19:51, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Oh, that actually gives me an idea. I know how to make myself useful. :D Twodots (talk) 19:54, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
My idea was garbage! Back to the drawing board. Twodots (talk) 20:21, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Anybody looking for something to do here can help me separate notes from references. That's what most of my mainspace edits on RationalWiki for the last five years have been. Ask me if you'd like more details. Spud (talk) 06:20, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
@Twodots Now that you're a sysop, you could try to de-escalate edit wars with a BoN/new user by protecting the page for a couple of hours and then telling the other party involved to take it to the talkpage. I've done that a few times. And remember: Assume good faith.Wikipedia --Goatspeed. See what I'm up toCircularREmail2.gifasoningSee what I've been messing around with 20:05, 21 November 2020 (UTC)


I've noticed that the overwhelming majority of people who participated in the "political opinion" pointless poll I recently created (about 70 of them) chose "Authoritarian Right". This is UNREALISTIC! "LIBERTARIAN LEFT" WON THAT POLL, BY A LOT! #StopTheSteal --Goatspeed. See what I'm up toCircularREmail2.gifasoningSee what I've been messing around with 20:59, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Putins troll army has certainly shown in numbers. That said, my political opinions are actually libertarian left or green but I voted Goat anyway, cause it's a pointless poll. Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 21:49, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
My view points are considered Libertarian Left. In the past few weeks there has been a growing number of trolls. --Channel 48 WDEM-TV3 (talk) 22:48, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
I chose "Centrist", because I'm a centrist liberal. --Goatspeed. See what I'm up toCircularREmail2.gifasoningSee what I've been messing around with 00:13, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Cringe as fuck. Oxyaena Harass 13:58, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
AnComs & Communists still top centrists by far, given their history and the denialism from the shit that they've done. Centrists never build working camps like Mao & Stalin, for example. 2A02:1812:2C66:D000:3DBD:3CAC:791C:981E (talk) 16:22, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Yet centrists do and have done some pretty shitty things of their own. The concentration camps at the border were built under Obama's orders. And who is "we?" We're not Marxist-Leninists, read a fucking book and you'll soon be able to make that basic distinction. Oxyaena Harass 21:28, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Guilt by association aside, I thought those camps were used for separatism under Trump's orders- as much as Obama does have some features I don't really like, such as his controversial drone-strike orders (which were given by our past 3 presidents: Bush, him, and Trump) and supporting Saudi Arabia knowing full well that they're killing Yemeni civilians for no reason, like Trump currently does. Also, it's worth noting that the even more centrist President-elect Biden supports ending ICE's cruel treatment of Mexican refugees. Saying all centrists are bad because of the mistakes some of them made is like saying that atheists are evil because "You know who else was an atheist? STALIN, MAO, POL POT, AND XI1111!!!oneoneelventy11one!!111one!!!11!!"--Goatspeed. See what I'm up toCircularREmail2.gifasoningSee what I've been messing around with 18:40, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Cory's poll right here shows a huge misunderstanding of anarchism[edit]

fairy tale of new york censorship controversy[edit]

the Pogues respond to the charming laurence fox AMassiveGay (talk) 14:28, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Laurence Fox can pogue mahone. Good for them for telling him to fuck off. Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 14:42, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
I like the song and was a bit miffed about a "different" version being used. I'm not even sure why it annoyed me, to be honest. I don't care enough to try and take any kind of action about it though. It's not like that one line is the linchpin of the experience. X Stickman (talk) 20:58, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
BBC radio listeners will have a choice. BBC Radio 1 will only be playing the censored version. BBC Radio 2 will only be playing the original uncensored version. And BBC Radio 6 Music will be playing both versions. And it's not as if the original version is hard to find online. Spud (talk) 11:29, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
this whole controversy thing has always been a lot of arse. as far as i am aware radio 1 also remove the words fuck and nigga from songs too and ive never seen any 'outrage' over that. remove faggot though and its suddenly its political correctness gone mad. im not sure if this homophobic or racist. fuck and nigga generally more common in hip hop - 'black' music. go ahead and censor that stuff. touch my music though and its like nazi germany. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:01, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
One's a recognised swear, the other's That One Word that even the real crazies are nervous about saying in any way that can be traced back to them, your typical 2020 reactionary type isn't going to get all hot and bothered by children not being able to hear them on daytime radio. "Faggot" was thrown around freely by everyone when I was at school (I'm 32), and it's still fairly common on t'internet in online games and such. I guess for whatever reason it just hasn't crossed that line from "naughty insult" to "unacceptable term" in a lot of people's minds, which means any kind of "censorship" of it is seen as nanny state over reach. I didn't actually know about the Radio 1 / 2 / 6 thing, that's pretty interesting actually. X Stickman (talk) 19:32, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
It became less acceptable when homosexuality became more widely accepted in the society. The homophobes still use it obviously, much like the racists still use the n-word (which again would have been more socially acceptable in say Jim Crow Era just turns out that it was "socially acceptable" to openly hate gays longer than it was to hate blacks).
Shane McGowan himself said that he didn't mean to insert the word into the song as a positive thing. Rather, the character is supposed to be spiteful and hateful in that verse. At the same time, he has absolutely no problem personally if someone wants to bleep the word.Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 19:48, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
The word "faggot" also has been somewhat completely defanged in certain circles (not necessarily homophobic ones even) due to 4chan using the short version of it ("fag") as a suffix to suggest the person being talked about is a friend (to the point that when they're talking about a gay dude, the term "gayfag" gets used which is uh... curious), which is a development before /pol/ happened and turned the place into an alt-right cesspool (so it permeates through basically the entire site). I don't personally really know what to think of that, but I do find that an interesting development. That isn't to say I'm okay with people using that term in conversations though, I get why people don't like that. It's just interesting that the term has basically lost all of it's meaning in certain groups. Sirius (dog star / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png) 21:08, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
i dont care where on the internet people like to frequent, if i hear someone use the word in any context in my vicinity that doesnt involve meatballs or public school fagging, they will get a glass pushed into their face. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:23, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
fag/faggot just wasnt used when i was at school as a slur on gay people. probably is now but its usage is an import. thanks america. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:30, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I must say that when the song first came out, in those pre-internet days of 1987 when I was a 14-year-old in Britain, I had no idea what the word "faggot" as an insult meant. It was a word that cool kids tossed around in American movies but it wasn't a word us Limeys used. Maybe it was just me that was ignorant. But I think quite a lot of listeners in the UK and Ireland wouldn't really have understood what the word meant back then either. Not that we Brits didn't have our own homophobic slurs, of course. And one thing, the word won't be bleeped on BBC Radio 1. Instead, the words "you cheap lousy faggot" will be replaced by "you're cheap and you're haggard", which Kirsty MacColl recorded for a performance of the song on Top of the PopsWikipedia. The line, "You're an old slut on junk", however, will become, "You're an old ... on junk", with the word just removed and nothing put in its place. Spud (talk) 23:49, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @AMassiveGay Yeah fair enough. I'm merely observing it, not encouraging people to start adopting it as a suffix. There's still a lot of communities and cases where that word gets used in a very homophobic way. That said, I would not encourage shoving glass into anyone's face cuz I think that's kind of an overreaction. Best to tell them to fuck off I'd say. Sirius (dog star / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png) 22:50, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Developments in the 2020 nightmare election results and the Trump lawsuits[edit]

Besides this whole ordeal being fertile ground for the South Park writers, Trump's hyper-limited "path to victory" has pretty much closed completely. Also Trump ended his lawsuit here in Michigan. --Channel 48 WDEM-TV3 (talk) 18:39, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Did you see any of the Giuliani press conference? Guy was sweating so hard his hair dye ran. I feel sorry for him, watching him hitch his cart to Trump’s wagon has been depressing. From “It is impossible that the whistle-blower is a hero and I’m not. And I will be the hero! These morons—when this is over, I will be the hero…” to the attempted bombshell Four Seasons press conference which reporters left early to his recent power grab within the Trump campaign to today’s demand that the media take him seriously and believe that his allegations of voter fraud weren’t fantasy… you just want him to tap out at this point. This was “America’s Mayor,” and his ambition is driving him to stay in the spotlight even as age takes its inevitable toll. It’s scary to watch, scary to imagine whatever drives you becoming the jagged edge of dementia, warping you into a caricature of yourself. And he’s got a national if not global audience for this! Maybe that's all he wants. Artificius (talk) 20:54, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
I just read a break-down of the bullshit they spewed, two things are just fucking hysterical:
  1. Sidney Powell said that Hugo Chavez financially supported stealing this election, which besides being dead, requires such incredible mental gymnastics, it should be awarded with an Olympic gold medal.
  2. This server being captured in Germany. The company denies it has a German office, the Army denies it was involved in any operation, and apparently it will show Trump flipped California. I'm convinced these imbeciles don't understand how the internet works, and believe that the evidence for every single evil thing in the world is just out there somewhere, on a European server. It makes the Trump-Ukraine Scandal look benign.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 00:44, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Actually, the Trump team is playing the game of running out the clock, and the Michigan and Pennsylvania, maybe even Georgia too, electoral certifications won't be made on time.
The Michigan suit that was withdrawn was over the Wayne County canvassers who rescinded their decision to rescind not certifying. So it's not a big deal.
Georgia, in the meantime, is developing big problems similar to PA that threaten it certification deadline.
And the Wisconsin Election Board is off on the wrong foot with a series of fuck ups.
Arizona and Nevada are hardly worth discussing right now; how does tiny Nevada take weeks to count ballots that Florida, the 3rd largest state, accomplished in one night?
Oh, and Arizona will not certify either til all lawsuits are settled.
If I were team Biden, I'd seriously begin looking at Plan B. nobsHell to the Thief! 01:25, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
What a load of drivel. Trump's suits have been thrown out for being of such low quality that it's made professional lawyers wonder who the fuck Trump has representing his cases. These suits are not only bound to fail, but are of such low quality that it would be laughable if he wasn't trying to undermine the election results. People like Nobs say they believe in democratic republicanism, but that's bull. They believe in seizing power by any means possible. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:58, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I mean Giuliani's hair was melting on his rat face from all the lies he was spewing during his press conference today. How can anyone take anything coming from the Trump campaign seriously anymore is one of life's great mysteries. Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 02:04, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
GC, well that's what Appeals courts, federal courts, and the Supreme Court are for, and how you run out the clock. nobsHell to the Thief! 02:09, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Pennsylvania, for example, cannot be certified. It violated the same equal protection clause as re-itereated in Bush v. Gore. So subtract 20 electoral votes from the number of electors who will meet when the Electoral College meets. nobsHell to the Thief! 02:13, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
No. They're for actual crimes and infractions, not overgrown children throwing a tantrum. Rob, Pennsylvania was thrown out BECAUSE THEY ADMITTED TO HAVING CAMPAIGN POLL WATCHERS IN THE FUCKING ROOM. THEY LITERALLY ADMITTED UNDER OATH THAT THEIR PUBLIC CLAIMS WERE HORSESHIT, YOU FUCKING DISHONEST PIECE OF SHIT. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:18, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Calm the fuck down GC, nobs is nothing to get that excited about. Is your Caps Lock broken maybe? Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 02:27, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Indeed, no need for all caps. In the real world, Georgia just confirmed that Biden won the recount today. Yet another judge dismissed yet another attempt to stop the certification with amusingly forceful language. Trump is basically at the Jacob Wohl stage of throwing shit at everything and seeing what sticks. (I do recommend that nobs restrict his diet of conservative news media that seems to feed the bullshit in his head. Conservative news media has potential serious side effects, such as addiction to posting excessive nonsensical babbling about QAnon on 8Kun.) (talk) 02:36, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
A dismissal is good; that ratchets it up to the Appeals court. And the Pennsylvania equal protection violations of voting standards are not related to the vote countiong fiasco. nobsHell to the Thief! 02:43, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Pipe down, you. States aren't required to delay certification because of crazy Rudy's poop-flinging monkey act. If they've determined that their electoral processes were sound, and that any pending litigation is meritless, then they can fire at will. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 03:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)


Well, gaw-aw-aw-leee, MI, GA, and PA have all certified. ProTip: Running out the clock only works when you're ahead. Zontar (talk) 09:42, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Cope harder nobs. CaptainCrackRock (talk) 15:25, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
As much as I love shitting on nobs for how pathetically stupid he is, we should also shit on him for being a traitor to the constitution. Essentially what nobs is endorsing an electoral coup, against the will of the people.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 16:58, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
What nobs and the other Trumpies want is so treasonous that it makes Benedict Arnold look like a patriot. --Channel 48 WDEM-TV3 (talk) 17:33, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
And yet nobs and his buddies have the gall to write about how we liberal atheists are the "unpatriotic" ones. They have now lost any remaining "moral high ground" over us. --Goatspeed. See what I'm up toCircularREmail2.gifasoningSee what I've been messing around with 20:06, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
I fucking love democracy. Twodots (talk) 20:33, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

This might be late, but...[edit]

...where do Dems go from here?

Joe won, but the rest of the election was, at best, a mixed bag. What do they do about it? What strategy do they take in 2022? There's a subset of people within the party who think they've shifted too far to the left and others who think it isn't liberal enough. NervousWreck96 (talk) 22:30, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

The next presidential election is in 2024, not 2022. Twodots (talk) 22:33, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
I was talking about the mid-terms. NervousWreck96 (talk) 22:33, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Honestly? The Biden administration should try, at least in the next two years, to get some large legislative packages through. That gives people a reason to vote beyond "I hate the other nominee," which is never a solid foundation for victory by itself.-Flandres (talk) 22:40, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
They might not be able to get anything done except with Executive Orders. If Mitch McConnel has sworn to block each and every cabinet nominee by Biden, what chance is there to get any legislature through. I guess the slim chance that Democratic candidates will win both of Georgia runoffs for senate and even then it's 50/50 with Harris breaking ties. Not much chance for sweeping progressive legislation there. Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 22:45, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Or if one of the Democratic candidates from Georgia wins, but the more maverick Republicans Romney and Collins vote for any court-packing/cabinet nominees. I mean, they did vote against Trump's last-minute nomination of that idiot who thinks the gold standard still works- though Collins did decline to comment on whether or not she'll support Biden. --Goatspeed. See what I'm up toCircularREmail2.gifasoningSee what I've been messing around with 04:33, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
I guess Biden might get around the cabinet and other nominations through recess appointments, but Republicans have demonstrated before that they're willing to just not go into recess to stop that kind of stuff. Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 22:46, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
I was just providing a optimistic scenario...I made no claims that it that it was a likely scenario, hmhmhmhmhm...-Flandres (talk) 22:47, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
@NervousWreck96 Well, sorry to nitpick but firstly it isn't "liberal enough" but "far enough left". These aren't really the same thing. As for what happens next well... The Dems have an internal power struggle, as does the GOP. While 2020 has seen the Dems move left the the GOP move right, this all exists in state of flux that could shift again depending on who gains and holds power within each party. From what I've seen, the Blue Dog faction (that the Dem faction Biden is a part of) is going to try to move the party right to appear more unifying, a la Bill Clinton. Personally and professionally I think such a move would be an unmitigated disaster, and likely lead to someone like Trump, if not Trump himself, beating the Dems in the next POTUS election, or potentially further down the road. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:05, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Dems should try to pass policy when they can, it'll be hard even if they pick off the two seats in Georgia. But they need to make clear with every single statement, the GOP won't help you because they don't care. Maybe we can eliminate this stupid two-party system if Collins, Romney and Murkowski decide that Mitch overstepped by quite literally grinding the gov't to a complete halt.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:27, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
I think they will; Romney and Collins voted against at least one of Trump's stupid last-minute nomination attempts to try and punish America for not reelecting him. --Goatspeed. See what I'm up toCircularREmail2.gifasoningSee what I've been messing around with 20:08, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Be careful not to put to much faith in so-called "moderate" Republicans. They tend to abuse their more "respectable" reputations to get away with similar far right douchebaggery scott-free. They also dangle the discredited idea of bi-partisanship to force Democratic presidents to the right on critical issues, which helps sets the stage for 2016 style fiascos where the base feels too demoralized to show up on election day(watching a Democratic president pass what is essentially center-right policy when he promised more progressive governance on the campaign trail is soul crunching).-Flandres (talk) 16:47, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

New Danish Study Finds Masks Don’t Protect Wearers From COVID Infection[edit]

"Anarchy is a pipedream"[edit]

Tell the homeless beggar on the street corner from your privileged, liberal point of view that the system of capitalism works for him. Go ahead, do it. After all, it's not like the system failed him, right? All he has to do is pull himself "up by his bootstraps." The opinion that marginalization is solely due to internal rather than external factors is disgusting, and shame on you, Cory, for saying that. Oxyaena Harass 09:43, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Cool Story, Sis. Revolverman (talk) 12:00, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
I'll admit I don't know Cory well, but he never advocated for rugged-individualist, completely deregulated capitalism. His disagreement lies with solutions outside the (very large and diverse) realm of capitalism. IveBeenFrank (talk) 12:06, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Except that he himself has argued that marginalization is due to internal rather than external factors, in a typically ableist and classist fashion. Capitalism is only diverse in how it placates the masses enough not to revolt, the means of production are still privately owned, regardless of which party is in charge. Apples and oranges are both fruits after all. Oxyaena Harass 12:21, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
My point being that capitalism itself is the problem. Regardless of the reforms you put in place at home, you're still exploiting the third world for raw resources and cheap labor. Oxyaena Harass 12:25, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
So capitalism "placates" the people? Then why has it singlehandedly lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty in China alone? And how would public ownership of the means of production stop the "exploitation" of the third world? I assume people will still want cars and plastic. And why won't regulations on capitalism stop this supposed exploitation? If Nestle could lose their licence to sell goods, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't pull stunts like Ghana again. More fundamentally, why are you sacrificing all the good capitalism has done, just because this very specific laissez-faire version is terrible? IveBeenFrank (talk) 12:32, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
What "good" has it done outside of pragmatic public relations stunts? It's all self-serving, and you're really using China as an argument? Those people live in a dystopian nightmare, it's like the Chinese Gilded Age. Poverty doesn't stand for shit if you're stuck in a consumerist hellhole with no actual freedom to operate outside of the system, much like in the West but much more obvious. The only reason "people" still want "cars and plastic" is because they have been conditioned to want such items, cars are specifically associated with luxury. What about the Semang in Malaysia? They don't want your pots and pans and plastic shit, they want to be left alone. Capitalism itself is fundamentally exploitative, the boss-worker hierarchy still exists, with the company profiting off of the labor value created by the workers while said workers only get a fraction of the value they make in return. I recommend you actually read literature on the subject rather than accepting at face value what CNN and CNBC tell you, m'kay? Oxyaena Harass 12:44, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
  1. I find it somewhat funny that you accuse other users of being privileged for glossing over the suffering of others, but are perfectly fine to handwave away poverty and act like it doesn't matter. I'm pretty sure if you asked an 80-year-old Chinese person, they'd say they're much happier today, living in an actual house, with actual equipment, running water, and Internet, earning a wage where they can afford to feed themselves and their children and still buy other commodities, working at a job that isn't physically damaging like growing your own crops entirely by hand. Is it perfect, or even good, in China? No. But it's better than it was without capitalism.
  2. I'm pretty sure a good deal of people want cars because they're good at getting to places. Or are you telling me that in your socialist paradise, everything everyone could ever want will be in walking distance? Secondly, yes, luxury items have become a special commodity all on their own, inflated by the ideas of our culture. But notice it is the culture, not the nature of capitalism itself, that causes those prices to be inflated. From a pure capitalistic approach, those prices wouldn't be so high, as those cars cost far more than the price it takes to produce them. People want things that are functional, that improve their quality of life. Many of these things can be made elsewhere around the globe. People want computers, and need ventilators. Those are more efficiently made elsewhere, allowing them to be made faster and be more available to those who need them.
  3. Again, what will your solution to this be? That the workers own everything? Well firstly, the workers can't own everything in a company; by necessity, certain workers will rise to higher positions in the company. And what's to stop natural corruption and exploitation by workers to workers? Worker-"owned" co-ops could be equally corrupt as companies, with the higher-ups manipulating their employees to the point that the workers cannot be said to truly own any part of the company. Secondly, these co-ops would still be driven by the profit margin, so that the workers can have a better standard of living.
  4. Oh, I have read the literature. Marx, Hegel, Kropotkin, Lenin, hell, even Mao. And I still haven't found a better, or even workable, solution. IveBeenFrank (talk) 12:59, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Not trying to start a fight, I'm just asking a question. @IveBeenFrank Have you Read Smith and/or Rawls? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:25, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
If you mean Adam Smith, then yes. I've read about Rawls, but haven't read any of his works. IveBeenFrank (talk) 13:29, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
@IveBeenFrank Have you read A Theory of Moral Sentiments? It's supposed to be a companion to An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. I also highly recommend A Theory of Justice. It's has some similar attitudes as moral sentiments. Both have heavily influenced my views on how society ought to be organized. (Yes, I am aware that both are capitalists.) ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:36, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
I've read excerpts of A Theory. Looking at a PDF of it now, I think I've read most of Part 1. IveBeenFrank (talk) 13:43, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Have you ever considered that the reason most people disagree with you is that you are just wrong? And way to strawman, I never said marginalization is due solely to internal factors, but that's the cause in many cases. For instance, I feel confident in saying that Incels are "denied" sex not because of an external system of oppression, but because they are almost all thoroughly disgusting people who people have good reason to want to avoid, or have overinflated egos regarding how attractive they are and regarding the beauty of the girls they "deserve". White Supremacists tend to get ostracized by neighbors and such, and that feeds into their oppression complex, but they wouldn't be so oppressed if they didn't go around harassing others. Drug addiction is often a symptom of other problems, but not always, and regardless of the reasons, eventually everyone else in the addicts' lives will simply wash their hands of the addicts at some point and the addicts will be out on the street.
Being an asshole to everyone around you is not how you make friends. CoryUsar (talk) 14:52, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
That's kind of a false equivalency. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 15:54, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Oxy is claiming that, and I quote, "[Cory's] opinion that marginalization is solely due to internal rather than external factors". That's not true, but there are plenty of times where marginalization most definitely is the result of internal factors such as "being a dick". CoryUsar (talk) 16:21, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Those examples aren't really marginalization. They're ostracization. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:25, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Huh, you're technically right. Guess I got a bit confused since I suggested that ostracization often came from internal reasons, but I don't think I've ever suggested anything regarding that about marginalization. CoryUsar (talk) 16:27, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
I don't subscribe to some of the more radical arguments, but accepting Capitalism in its current form as the best option for society seems to be wrong. Considering that two once in a lifetime financial calamities happened 12 years apart, and that the systems is failing to adjust accordingly to a new set of circumstances (i.e. a global pandemic), it is time to reevaluate everything. Not to mention that most of the people that built up much of the infrastructure and support the system are excluded from it, especially most of the black and brown people.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 17:07, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
@RipCityLiberal To be technical and nuanced, the US is operating under one of the dumb versions of capitalism (Chicago School Neo-Liberalism). To be realistic however, as with it's predecessor Mercantilism, Capitalism will have to end one day. That's just how these sort of systems work. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:21, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
@RipCityLiberal I actually oppose the system As Is. I'm in favor of some variety of Social Democracy, but utterly despise Democratic Socialism. Bernie's rhetoric resonates with me, though I am somewhat disgusted with the man himself because... reasons.
The big issue coming now is Automation. It's not a new thing, but it's accelerating. This does not mean there will be nothing left for people to do, but we have to actually be willing to tax and spend to get people to do the work the market itself won't pay for. Currently, we have far, far too many "make-work" type jobs, where government creates absurdly complicated ever-changing rules specifically to keep otherwise unemployed people employed, and sadly, a lot of these people actually are somewhat intelligent. Attorneys and Accountants complain that everything they know changes every year, but the dirty little secret is that "learning a new ruleset" is their actual job. It's inefficient, and a waste of education and talent that could be put to better use. We have schools that lack teachers, a shortage of nursing care for the elderly, children being neglected, crimes going unsolved. Rather than create fake work for people, we should be hiring people directly. More tutors, more nurses, more social workers, more detectives, more defense attorneys. If that means "big government", so be it. CoryUsar (talk) 17:49, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
I don't quite know what you mean by government-made "make-work" jobs. Whenever I think of that level of stupid-complexity, I think of the corporate world. HR, marketing, consulting; hell, half of an MBA is jargon. Sure, the government has an influence on how accountants and attourneys work, but a large part of what they do is the market developing wacky stuff, some people exploiting loopholes in it, and the government stepping in to say "No, we're going to make sure there aren't any loopholes." IveBeenFrank (talk) 18:01, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── To be clear here, the way we currently allow for the collection and distribution of capital is flawed. And either you accept that reality, and discuss what we need to do in the future. Or you disagree, in which case I would politely ask that you examine whether your ideology actually is ok with dead people over $1 in profit.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 18:09, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

@IveBeenFrank Take a look at the tax code some time. Were you aware that in Europe, your government does your taxes for you? They have all the paperwork submitted to them by your employer and financial institutions already, you know. Not in the US, because that would mean thousands of tax accountants out of work. The legal system is again incredibly convoluted, because that means more jobs for attorneys. In the US, every 5 minutes of patient care generates 10 minutes of paperwork. Yes, there's twice as much paperwork as actual patient care. In the 80's, a small clinic of 3 doctors would have 3 file clerks/secretaries/receptionists, but now, that same clinic would have 9. Nine. And who do you think pays the salaries of the 6 extra support staff? You. You pay for them. And that is the biggest single reason for the obscenely high cost of medical care in the US.
Simplify the rules, and stop changing them constantly, and a quarter of the workforce could be sacked overnight. That doesn't mean they should be left homeless, but rather, hire them to actually do things we need. With all the attorneys out of work, surely we could give every defendant a decent defense attorney, maybe stop extorting people into pleading guilty to crimes just because it'd be inconvenient to actually have a trial. Tax accountants could easily be retrained as math teachers in schools, or better yet, train them as forensic accountants and go after all the tax fraud and evasion going on.
Really, we don't have any shortage of work for people to do, only an unwillingness to actually do it.
@RipCityLiberal I've... never really disagreed that the collection and distribution of capital and wealth is flawed, only as to what the flaws are, and I suspect we agree more than we disagree. I believe that anyone who does a job that the rest of society depends on to function, should be paid enough to support themselves and a small family regardless of any compensation in terms of "feel-goodies". For example, EMTs are critical, and they should be paid more than $12/hr for their work regardless of how "fulfilling" their job of saving everyone else's life is. Non-critical work, I'm not so sure about. But if you are going to argue that the worker is "essential" enough that your business should remain open during the pandemic, well, you are literally making the claim that the worker is essential to society, ergo, they should be paid a living wage. CoryUsar (talk) 18:29, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Well, Oxy, I'd recommend thinking this over a bit. You're angered... by an option someone included in a pointless poll, of all things. And besides, I actually chose the very option you didn't like for being unflattering towards your favorite topic. I guess that makes me another member of the "spoiled, privileged borgeoisie", and just as bad as this person... --Goatspeed. See what I'm up toCircularREmail2.gifasoningSee what I've been messing around with 18:58, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Heck, for the record, my actual vote was for "it can work in certain circumstances". I put that poll up there in the first place because GC was claiming I didn't speak for everyone when I said that most people don't support anarchism, heck, wasn't even being all that serious and I'm actually surprised at the number of "pipe dream" votes. CoryUsar (talk) 19:03, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
" But if you are going to argue that the worker is "essential" enough that your business should remain open during the pandemic, well, you are literally making the claim that the worker is essential to society, ergo, they should be paid a living wage."@CorruptUser Critical point here. Two things though are actually happening; businesses (especially food and alcohol sellers) have lobbyists that push governments to limit restrictions, putting their own profits over their employees lives, because they have no protections (i.e. a union). As well calls to increase wages get responses from employers that because sales are decreasing they can't afford to pay their employees more, while still receiving aid from governments. This isn't necessarily a crime (it should be), but it must be corrected with something urgently. I'm not certain anarchism would be the answer, but that's because there is no singular answer other than what we're doing now isn't working.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 22:31, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
@RipCityLiberal And other than whether or not Anarchism is a solution, what are we disagreeing on? CoryUsar (talk) 22:58, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Oh I'm not arguing, I'm attempting illustrate that most of us discussing this topic agree more than we disagree, but I think we are presently playing up our differences and attacking our ways of presenting arguments in a fashion that isn't constructive.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 00:25, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

But muh secular values[edit]

Macron's going full fascist right now. Hope y'all are happy. Oxyaena Harass 18:10, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I very much doubt most of the site regulars here are "happy" with this. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:23, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
In a twisted way, I pity Macron. He's trying to play all sides here, and the last thing I want is someone far more extreme (such anti-Muslim positions are fairly popular in France) coming to power. If Le Pen was PM, you can bet things would be much worse. IveBeenFrank (talk) 18:28, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Remember, in the 80's, Holland had Hans Janmaat, who called for Holland to prioritize the Dutch themselves and to limit immigration. He was called a racist and excluded, and as a result, Pym Fortuyn and later Geert Wilders took his place, and they called for much, much worse, and Janmaat's ideas are now basically the mainstream.
The rabid xenophobic parties in Europe often get double digit percentages of the vote, and that's with people sometimes believing, for instance, Environmentalism and the Green parties are a more pressing concern than keeping Slovakia inbred, or Workers Rights being more important than Gay Rights, or whatever. Golden Dawn, AfD and NPD, BNP and UKIP, Jobbik, etc. The other parties do need to do something to placate the public's inherent Xenophobia or have much better outreach, make a public show of enforcing the rule of law when problems arise (seriously, the Rotherham Sex Gang, where a group of Pakistani men were targeting hundreds of underage poor white girls to be gangraped into sex-slavery, while the local police knew about it and covered it up is literally the narrative that Neo-Nazis have been pushing for decades). That, or accept that the Xenophobes will gain power and start writing the new rules. CoryUsar (talk) 18:49, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Just because some of us don't like Islam as an ideology does not mean we hate Muslims and are therefore "happy" about this. People need to stop assuming that, as it's harmful to public discourse and is killing nuance- and it is for this reason that I've been trying to convince people to use the term "Muslimophobia" to describe things like what Macron, Trump, and Xi are doing to Muslims, instead of... well, the alternative.
I don't care about your stupid thing with HBC and Cory, this toxicity is not good for you. I understand that you've been through a lot, but you've got to stop alienating people who've known you for a long time on here. --Goatspeed. See what I'm up toCircularREmail2.gifasoningSee what I've been messing around with 19:05, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, I'll remember that term(or try at least). It brings nuance to a debate that has extreme trouble with nuance since 2001.-Flandres (talk) 19:18, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Good. Looks like my promoting of the more-accurate term "Muslimophobia" finally stuck with someone- instead of them just ignoring it and continuing to pretend there's no alternative to the other version of it to the persuasion of no one. --Goatspeed. See what I'm up toCircularREmail2.gifasoningSee what I've been messing around with 20:22, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Extremism is the problem, always has been, always will be. It doesn't matter what monotheism is peddling it, it must be identified, refuted then discarded. This isn't an Islam problem, it is an extremism problem.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:21, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
True-Islamic violence is hyper-focused on but it is hardly unique to that faith. I suppose the debate becomes "what conditions create extremism" and then influence policy from there. That is why I personally oppose things like burkha bans as cosmetic security theater at best.-Flandres (talk) 19:27, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
I never said "outlaw Islam", nor did I ever suggest that violence is "unique" to it. I doubt people would accuse me of such if I talked about, say, Christianity- which I also shit on a lot, as shown in my contribs. This whole "how dare you single out Islam!" thing is exactly what I was talking about. I oppose burqa bans as much as the next person, even though I disapprove of the idea that women should cover themselves "to avoid tempting men". --Goatspeed. See what I'm up toCircularREmail2.gifasoningSee what I've been messing around with 19:53, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Fine by me, so long as you don't go too far and become an Iraq war apologist like a certain great disappointment, or for that matter the fallen four horsemen. IveBeenFrank (talk) 20:05, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
That's good, unless by "going too far" you mean agreeing with an uncompromising but innocuous statement like "Islam is the motherlode of bad ideas". As I've said before, I'm not at all happy about what Macron's doing and have only ever spoken out against the armed conflicts in the middle east- and to suggest that I am "happy" simply because I question Islam's alleged "peacefulness" is unfair and insulting. That's the point I was trying to make in replying to the OP. --Goatspeed. See what I'm up toCircularREmail2.gifasoningSee what I've been messing around with 20:12, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

There are lots of marginalised groups in Europe who suffer from prejudice, poverty and discrimination. The only one that sets off dirty bombs and drives trucks into crowds are radical Islamists. While you can say that the conditions that inflame anger can be explained by Islamophobia and discrimination it doesn't explain why it is almost always radical Muslims who murder people because of ideological criticism and ridicule (comics of the prophet for example) or kill innocent bystanders for questionable government policy. Dealing with the causes of the anger in Europe is not enough (it is essential but don't pretend radical islam will just go away). The number of Muslims in Spain is super tiny and yet I live next to a train station that was blown up. There are lots of groups of marginalised people who have just as much of, if not even more reason to be ragingly angry and yet they don't indiscriminately murder (especially over an "insult"). Radicalised Muslims do. Extraordinary measures have to be taken to tackle radical Islam (not islam in general...radical Islam). I don't agree with all of the measures that Macron has taken (asking Muslim leaders to agree to a set of principles is ridiculous for example or expecting muslims to parrot a list of values is super over the top). But closing down the most radical clerics and their madrassas, limiting the entry of radical clerics into the country, making laws criminalising non reporting of imminent terrorist actions are all entirely sensible. As is reiterating that the right to lampoon the shit out of religion is non-negotiable nor ever will be, including the right to discuss these things in any public space including schools, regardless of how someone who cares about that ideology (remember religion is an ideology that can be changed) feels. Macron went over the top with some of his measures and yes WAY MORE should be done to end Islamophobia as much as possible, limit discrimination and inequality in Muslim communities in France (it should be on the top of any politicians list) and the boastful sweeping comments by Macron are not helpful. But cracking down on extremism and reiterating the importance of secularism is not at all unreasonable. Secularism is as important to them as the constitution is to Americans and I don't see anything wrong with caring deeply for and tolerating no threat to either secularism nor a constitution. And the overwhelming majority of French people (progressives included) would entirely stand by this. I have no sympathy for people who think religious sensibilities trump the right to ridicule the shit out of religion or any other ideology, including their precious little prophet. ShabiDOO 20:18, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Good post! Evilatheistheathen (talk) 02:35, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Good post! Wow. Took the words right out of my mouth. --Goatspeed. See what I'm up toCircularREmail2.gifasoningSee what I've been messing around with 20:20, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes, but... my impression here is that Macron seems to be using Islamic extremism and civil unrest to tilt towards illiberalism (sounds familiar...). Bear in mind in this particular case that while a lot of what Macron says is pretty nasty, this is just words Macron is floating around. It is subject to likely change in my mind, as the French CFCM (Council of Muslim Worship) is the ones creating this initial draft on a "charter of republican values" from what I can tell. However, the current uproar in France is over "Article 24" of a recent security law passed by Macron's party, which actually heavily criminalizes "l’usage « malveillant » d’images des forces de l’ordre (eg: the "malicious" use of police images). And we thought the various cop camera bullshit in the US was bad. So it seems like Macron is tilting in an illiberal direction of late, which will do nothing to solve the problem of Islamic extremism from my point of view. (talk) 20:25, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I was not implying Muslims should be given special treatment, was I Shabidoo? I simply think the debate is handled wrong sometimes and focuses on non-issues to the detriment of deeper discussion.-Flandres (talk) 20:28, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Extremism is indirectly the result of exclusion. We don't have more terrorism than a century or two ago (remember when numerous world leaders, include a President or two, were murdered by Anarchists?). What we have is different terrorism. The supply of terrorists has typically been disaffected young males, people cast out by society and vulnerable to whatever radical 'ism attracts them. Doesn't really matter what, it just has to explain to them how it's not their fault they've been cast out, but the fault of Heathens (Christian weirdos), Jews (NeoNazis and, well, virtually all the 'isms), infidels (Islamism), bourgeoisie (Communism), capitalists (Anarchism and others), or really, whatever.
The question shouldn't be "does Islam create more Extremism than other systems?", but rather, "does Islam create more disaffected young men, who are then more vulnerable to extremist ideologies?". For now, the answer yes, but it's not intrinsic to Islam itself that can never be rectified. But it would require some changes within the Islamic community to be more inclusive of LGBT issues and whatnot CoryUsar (talk) 21:34, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
The Boston Tea Party were terrorists. That being said, you misunderstand anarchism (yet again) as well as many other things you have covered. GC put it best: you're not worth taking seriously on this subject. Oxyaena Harass 22:15, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
I think Oxy is framing this wrong. AFAIK the identification numbers are more of a restriction on homeschooling than anything else. Forcing Imams to register makes me uncomfortable in terms of religious freedom, though. We have to bear in mind that Islamist extremism IS a problem in France. Doing nothing isn't really an option. With that said, I think a better, more effective solution would be to promote integration naturally instead of making Muslims feel like they're under attack. As I've said before, I know a great deal of Muslims and they're really not that different from the average population. Helping them to live in diverse neighborhoods and attending schools with diverse classrooms (you could say that the new homeschooling rules achieve this) would go a long way. As would affirmative action programs making sure Muslims get to be a part of French society, and not second class citizens. I haven't been back to France in over a decade and thus haven't been following the news that closely, maybe Macron's plan addresses that, I don't know.-Hastur! (talk) 22:08, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
1) Boston Tea Party were thieves/vandals, not terrorists. No one was seriously injured. Considering that they were protesting against international business interests and wearing masks, they were basically the guys in the Guy Fawkes masks during the Occupy protests, so...
2) I understand enough. I don't need to read all the works of Thomas Aquinus to know Christianity is probably bunk. I've met and dealt with enough anarchists themselves, read enough about it, to write most of it off as a bunch of college kids going through a pseudo-intellectual phase. Given that YOU are the biggest supporter of Anarchism here, you are only confirming my preconceived biases about Anarchists being a bunch of fools that can be written off.
3) Even if I'm wrong about Anarchism and I don't actually understand it, Anarchism is still a fringe idea with little acceptance in political discourse. Me opposing it is more YOUR problem than mine. CoryUsar (talk) 22:37, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
I might be speaking from ignorance, but I haven’t heard of any active anarchist terror threats. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 23:00, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
An idea being fringe or mainstream isn't really a good metric for whether it's realistic or reasonable. After all, Trump was/is mainstream, as is Le Penn in France. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:03, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Le Penn was thankfully wrecked pretty hard in the 2017 election. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 23:10, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
She's still pretty mainstream in France, and my point on the problems with using radical/mainstream as a metric to try to assess an idea still stands. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:16, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
@DuceMoosolini President William McKinkley was murdered by an anarchist, as was Tsar Alexander II, there were a couple of high profile assassinations of other nobles including Empress Sisi (who was Franz Ferdinand's stepmom; that family just can't catch a break).
@GrammarCommie Not the argument I'm making at all. I'm saying it's irrelevant how good anarchism would be for you, because if me and mine "don't understand it", you ain't getting it either. CoryUsar (talk) 23:20, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Just ODing, don't mind me. Twodots (talk) 23:25, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I know anarchist assassins were a big thing historically. But I don’t think there are anarchist threats active anymore. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 23:35, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Cory, that's also a bad argument. I don't understand the technical details of nuclear fusion, but I don't doubt someone who reads up and studies the topic knows the subject. Likewise, someone who studies political theory would know more about Anarchism than someone who doesn't study political theory. Cough, cough. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:39, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Except nuclear fusion can be demonstrated, or it can't. There's been plenty written about cold fusion, and it looks like a bunch of pseudo-science. If someone wants to actually demonstrate cold fusion as actually feasible, hooray. If someone wants to insist that cold fusion is awesome but I don't get it because I haven't read enough about it, but I should give them money for it, piss off. Likewise, show me Anarchism in practice. I've read a bit about it, and everything I've read and seen appears to demonstrate a lack of understanding about Humans in general. So stop writing about how wrong I am and show me the Anarchist societies I would be happy to join. Anyone with enough time on their hands can write a book about how awesome Anarchism is, but the proof is in the pudding, so stop giving me recipes and give me the pudding. CoryUsar (talk) 23:52, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
No, seriously, a metric fuckton more has been written about how awesome organized religion is. Does that mean we have to trust a Priest when he says he knows more about God than we do? Stop with the teleological arguments, stop with all the sophistry and parlor tricks. Without going to the books, show me that your religion has the Truth. CoryUsar (talk) 23:57, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
One, I'm not only non-religious, I'm an anti-theist. Two, and I really get fucking tired of telling you this only for you to ignore me I am not an Anarchist. Three, comparing political philosophy to religion is asinine and disingenuous. Have I ever made such a comparison for Liberalism or Conservatism? No, of course not, because I fucking know my subject matter. Ok? Ok. So jus stop. You made some bad arguments, it happens. Own up to it and move on for fuck's sake. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:05, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
But that's just it, Conservatism and Liberalism have been put to practice, we can compare and contrast them. Conservatives can bleat on all day about how great Conservatism is, but we don't have to contradict them with sophistry, we can actually show with real world data. We don't have to argue about how a theoretical Social Democracy would be oh so much better, we can actually show real world results from Social Democratic countries. The same can't be said of Anarchism. CoryUsar (talk) 00:23, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Stop making shit arguments! "Democratic Republicanism can never work. Monarchism has been put into practice for years, Democratic Republicanism is just a religion!" These are your arguments, but used to support monarchism. If I can do that, your arguments are shit. You can, at most, say Anarchism is as yet unconvincing to you personally, and that you feel it ought to show more tangible results before you can feel confident in it, but that's it. It's not like any country on Earth is just going to hand over a plot of land to let a potential rival ideology prove itself, that's not how these things work. Gods fucking damnit!!! And, even were Anarchism to prove itself without merit, THAT STILL WOULDN'T MAKE IT A RELIGION. The dichotomy you set up is rife with hidden assumptions and shaky reasoning, and I want you to fucking stop. Stop with assuming you know this subject, stop assuming you know my views or motives, stop with the groundless assumptions!! Oh, and fucking apologize for fucking falsely accusing me of being an anarchist. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:39, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Are you ok? Twodots (talk) 00:56, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Many people DID think Democratic Republicanism wouldn't work. Heck, the first attempt in the US didn't work. And the second nearly collapsed as well a few decades later. And it wasn't particularly Democratic by today's standards, considering that only Wealth White Males were allowed to vote (ignored New Jersey). And that's with numerous small-scale examples of Democracy in action; US Democracy wasn't made up out of nothing, after all.
I could say "Anarchism is unconvincing as yet, and I'd like to see tangible results first". But I won't say that. What I will say is "I'm convinced that Anarchism won't and can't work on anything but in small special cases, in various other cases it has failed miserably and in general it seems to go against my understand of Human Nature, and I'd like to see tangible results before I seriously consider anything you have to say".
I view it as more of a Dogma of sorts, like Objectivism or Marxism or Neo-Conservatism. Sure, there's no supernatural involved, but there's a blind faith the the source material and a prophet or prophets who is/are beyond reproach, and anyone who does not adhere to the Dogma is either a potential convert or a subversive individual who is living a life'o'sin/false consciousness/liberal (apparently?)/spawn of Satan. It's not a religion the way Christianity is, but it's not unlike one.
As for accusing you of being an Anarchist, fine, I apologize, the SWAT team has been called off. I just hope they get the message in time; if not, just scream out "I'M ON THE JOB!" and hope for the best. CoryUsar (talk) 01:16, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────ODing again... Twodots (talk) 01:20, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Don't OD just to OD. Do it when you are responding, or let the others in the convo do it. CoryUsar (talk) 01:26, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
I said as much on his talk page. I'm starting to regret giving this noob advice on wiki editing. Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 01:29, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Sorry. Twodots (talk) 01:38, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I swear to mother-loving Cthulhu Cory, Do not make me hurt you in person. Democratic Republicanism predates The US, with early attempts occurring during the English Civil war. Those would be some of the people Cromwell had executed by the way, with the idea going as far back as Ancient Athens, where it was chucked aside in favor of monarchist dictatorship. And again, it is very easy for you to project your current position backwards through history, but speaking from a historiographic perspective, that's not how ideas like this work. The proponents clash until they seize enough power and then try to implement their ideas, often failing due to a multitude of factors, including problems with the base ideas, hostile external and internal actors, internal unrest, and just straight up bad luck. And yes, Marxism, Objectivism, and Neo-conservatism are political philosophies. Like it or not, that's the category they fall under. And here's a fun fact, I don't advocate for any of them. At all. An incomplete list of things I don't advocate for: Anarchism, Fascism, Liberalism, Monarchism, Theocracy, Plutocracy, Communism, Marxism, Conservatism, Liberalism (it's complicated). Ok? You don't know my views, you just assume because I'm not automatically dismissive of ideas you personally don't like or agree with that I'm a proponent of those ideas. Stop doing that. It's annoying that I keep having to tell you to stop. Just because I steelman a position and say that your shitty criticism of it is shit, doesn't mean that I advocate for that position. I have fucking had it up to here with this crap. With all the pseudo-intellectual, anti-philosophical, anti-intellectual, circle jerking. I'm not fucking screaming "I'M ON THE JOB!", I'm telling you when you make a bad argument in the (apparently vain, since you never fucking listen) hope that you'll improve and grow, like a fucking skeptic and rationalist. You know, the ideas this site is supposed to be founded on? Fucking hell. Your reply indicates you don't fucking listen to me at all, nor do you fucking understand or care to understand why I'm arguing with you. It's intellectually shallow, vapid childish nonsense. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:42, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
I think at some point, you and I ought to just hug this one out... CoryUsar (talk) 01:52, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
At this rate, I'm more likely to try to punch your teeth out than hug you. I'm not irritated or frustrated with you disagreeing with me on politics, that's hopw shit works. But your repeated demonstrations of ignorance and assumptions of Bad Faith from me when I weigh in on a political and/or philosophical topic (have you actually read the thread on human nature where I disagree with Oxy and call some of her positions stupid? Sheesh.) and just sort assuming my positions are the same as Oxy's, (An assumption I seriously resent, we very clearly differ on a number of key issues and base assumption) are driving me up a wall. Typing out my frustration with you, trying to work with you and correct bad arguments is seriously spiking my blood pressure. And it sometimes seems like I'm the only one who cares or notices. Take for example, just recently when you assumed I was promoting anarchism. How would you feel if I just up and assumed you were a reactionary conservative if you were to point out a problem with the idea of someone claiming "Bernie lost because the DNC Deep State ran a pysop!" Like, would that make any effing sense? Of course not! You might not even like the Dem leadership, but you'd want the criticisms of them to be well founded, because poor criticism helps mask legitimate problems.
Or let's use the previous fiasco involving the discussion of how Anarchism claims it would handle nuclear weapons and military matters. I lay out their positions to be argued with, and you first ask me "And when a group of non-Anarchists in Madagascar disagree, and create an army of their own with a nuclear arsenal?" in response to "To answer youyr questions, in order, there wouldn't be any, they'd be decommissioned for being stupid and pointless, and with a(non-standing) military." and then you pivoted to "I don't think you get it. If any group is not anarchist, or doesn't believe in nuclear disarmament or whatever, then they can simply conquer the anarchist societies and take their shit." when I pointed out that your first question didn't make any godsdamned sense. Like, what did you expect my response to be? You literally pivoted from "Well how will they defend territory from nuclear annihilation" to "Well how will they defend from invasion?" with seemly no understanding of how disconnected those scenarios are, or the fact that I stated that anarchists have answers for those kinds of questions.
So, firstly, nuclear weapons are a form of hard political capital. Basically, they're bigass sticks (or penises if you prefer). Most countries never intend to follow through on threats of using them, because that would be insane. Anyone who did launch a nuclear missile might as well yell "shoot me, I'm a dangerous moron" in front of the UN assembly. So, they aren't for use. they're for international posturing and intimidation. Anarchist literature is either mute on this subject, or hostile towards the idea of using death sticks to play chicken with other people's lives, as it is viewed by them as an unjust use of force. Now, could I have phrased that better so as to remove my own anti-nuclear weapon bias? Probably. But the fact that I communicated the base sentiment so bluntly makes your followup even more ignorant. People don't use nukes to invade, too destructive, and radioactive real estate plummets in value. So that's the nuke issue dealt with. Secondly, the Anarchist would have a military (or they probably wouldn't exist as a nation/nation-like concept for very long, since militaries are kind of important) They just wouldn't have a standing military. Most either advocate a return to a militia system, or scaling down the military (if not disbanding it) during peacetime. Now, those solutions right there have demonstrable problems we could easily discuss, but you went off into scenarios that were either ill thought out or just not realistic. That is what frustrates me. Would you like to discuss the problems with a militia system, especially in terms of larger areas such as the US? That' an interesting discussion. (shrug emote here). ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:36, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Sure, why not. The militia problem, aside from how a military would be structured without a clear hierarchy, is that no private individual is going to have an aircraft carrier. A militia can quickly supply a standing army with large numbers of well trained soldiers and probably quite a few of the highly skilled specialists that a modern military depends upon, but virtually none of the material. CoryUsar (talk) 03:06, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Well, yes and no. Technically, Switzerland still uses the Militia system, though if I remember correctly they have a standing military as well. Militias can't engage in conventional warfare that well, true, meaning they don't work very well in a traditional defensive scenario. However, they are somewhat better able to engage in guerrilla warfare than a conventional force. Now, that being said, most militia systems don't really have dedicated military infrastructure (logistics corp) and tend to heavily rely on local sources for supplies, which in turn makes them open to attack from that angle. Another thing to remember is that Militias fell out of favor as trends in warfare and tactics changed, which in the late 17000-early 1800s meant a shift towards large scale ground battles where forces were concentrated to try to hit with maximum effect, rather than complex (somewhat) coordinated skirmishes. This trend has (sort of) reversed of late, with large scale battles falling away in favor of hit and run tactics and surgical strike operations, since changes in strategy, technology, and enemy behavior mean those are now more resource efficient. So, in the future similar ideas to militias might see a renascence, or the trends might shift again. For now however, we can say that Militias aren't very good defensively, and we can say that with some certainty based on historical precedent. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:21, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Asymmetric Warfare relies upon being able to hide amongst civilians. There's two ways to defeat such tactics. The first is to treat it as a policing action, not a military one. Local authorities track and detect "criminal" organizations, hunt them down, and so forth. This relies upon locals who know the lay of the land, who know these people, and are willing to betray their own neighbors. You can always find collaborators, and in response, the guerrillas may murder anyone and their families who sides with the occupiers, and that pisses off more people while others side with the guerrillas and claim it's necessary. Basically, you end up with a civil war caused by the invasion *cough*Iraq*cough*, and it's a mess. It depends on just how popular the guerrillas are or how hated the invaders are. Propaganda is key, hearts and minds and all that, but it could go either way.
The other option? Total War, which really isn't much different from genocide. Asymmetric Warfare relies on constantly being able to attack without getting struck back, but is completely unable to defend anything. No civilians left means no civilians left to hide behind, to send supplies, to coordinate, nothing. Considering that until fairly recently, half the point of joining the army was to murder some foreigners, steal their livestock, enslave their children and rape their women, well, Asymmetric Warfare in opposition to invasion was of limited use.
So against a "civilized" army, your militia and guerrillas may have a chance, and Anarchists may be able to punch above their weight given the stakes involved. If the army is extremely civilized, and enough of your own people become disillusioned with the Anarchist society (which could never happen, because it's a utopia), and suddenly you are now conquered. But against an army who doesn't give a shit about basic decency? Who doesn't even view you as human? Well, the only thing your militia are good for is to slightly fertilize the battlefield. CoryUsar (talk) 04:51, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
@CorruptUser "the Anarchist society (which could never happen, because it's a utopia)" Why do you do this? We were having a nice discussion about the limits of a militia system, and you went and disrupted in with snide commentary which seems aimed at positions I have explicitly stated that I do not hold. Are you trying to call me a liar? If so, just do so and be done with it so I know not to waste my time trying to engage with you. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 04:57, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Wasn't suggesting you were holding that position. Was snarking about it. When I'm attacking a position, I'm not necessarily attacking your position nor attacking you. CoryUsar (talk) 05:08, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
The more that I think about it, is that the disconnect here? Are you always assuming that when I'm attacking a position you're defending as devil's advocate, that you think I'm attacking you or that you believe that I believe that it's your position? CoryUsar (talk) 05:15, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Well I was under the impression that we were going to talk about militias vs conventional military ,and the pros and cons thereof, in microcosm so as to understand foundational assumptions in adopting such a position. Not, "anarchism bad, lol". I happen to want to engage in intellectualism for the purpose of mutual enrichment, not heckling from the peanut gallery. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 05:21, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Because one, I wasn't defending anarchism, I was arguing that your critique of it is bad (it is) and two, at this moment, I was under the impression that we were talking about a specific subject, not how it relates to anarchism. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 05:24, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── My snark was because the goto response from any Utopian type of thinking is going to be that no one would ever disagree with the Utopia. It doesn't matter if it's an Anarchist society, an Islamic society, or a society of Furries, there will always be those disillusioned with the whole thing for whatever reason, and thus willing to work with the invaders. The weird thing about all societies is that there really can't be a perfect society because we don't all value the same things, and what may be Heaven for you could be Hell for me. We could create a least awful society, but even then that depends a lot on what the people in that society value and how much weight we give to each unhappy person. It's entirely possible that for a given group of people, they really would be happiest under some sort of anarcho-primitivist commune, whereas the society a town over would be happiest under a military junta, and two towns further down the society is happiest under the strict control of a priesthood. That's part of why you do need to allow freedom of association and movement, to allow people who want to create their own pocket of weirdness some extent to do so. But anyway, if you want to limit this to only military tactics, sure, why not. CoryUsar (talk) 05:39, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Let's just ignore all your baseless assertions for a second and focus on the last part of your spiel. You do realize that's what anarchists advocate for, yes? Complete freedom of association and movement. We believe in total autonomy and voluntary association, but we don't have that in modern statist societies, where if you try to go off on your own you're still forcibly subjected to the state's will. Look at what Philaldelphia did to MOVE, or what the feds did to the Branch Davidians in Waco. Liberalism is not intellectually consistent, it argues for "freedom of association" and yet simultaneously argues for government, which is inherently contradictory to voluntary association. Oxyaena Harass 15:11, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
What an inane argument. Do you understand what total autonomy would be like? What the abolition of the state would cause? Two words: Anarcho-capitalism. It doesn't sound like you're a big fan of mega-corporations, so your fervent arguments for anarchism surprise me. You know who can best keep corporations in check? It's the state. People have tried boycotts, pleas, protests, and they have never done a single thing until a law is passed. And guess what: the only way to dissolve these corporations is to make use of the state.
Second, the state steps in when things get crazy. Do you think a gaggle of regular citizens could bring a serial child-molesting cult with several hundred illegal firearms lodged in a compound to justice? Or would you prefer child molesters, murderes, rapists, and all manner of criminal scum to "freely associate?" Justice must be done, and sometimes that means the government must use lethal force.
If anything, anarchism is intellectually inconsistent. Yo wail against giant corporations, but desire to create a society that would dramatically increase their power. IveBeenFrank (talk) 15:38, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Capitalism depends on an enforcement of property rights. Who do you think enforces property rights? Capitalism depends on the state for its very existence, your argument is the inane one, lol. Talk about projection. You wanna know why we have things like vacations, paid overtime, and the 8 hour work week? It's because of anarcho-syndicalists, not because of the state. The state didn't "give" us those things, they were granted as concessions during the early 20th century because of angry anarchist workers organizing and striking, utilizing their collective power for their own advantage. Learn history and read political theory. Oxyaena Harass 15:58, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
The state is vital in keeping capitalism functioning, since capitalism is so self destructive that a state is needed to go against individual companies from time to time to keep the system itself functioning. You also used examples of people trying to get things done without any organizational or institutional power while ignoring times were people got organized and did things the state couldn't. Right now we have a police force, so of course you cant expect people to organize a body that can deal with crime instead, the state is forcing a monopoly on us so we cant deal with these problems ourselves. In the Old West people elected sherrifs who would then appoint others to help deal with crime and disturbance, people can organize to fight crime without relying on a state body to do it for them. States are defined as entities that maintain a monopoly on violence within a given area, as per Webster. Also, the rapists and murderers are themselves the powers that be right now, but people always focus on the ones who are the rejects of society, not the rich white males in a boardroom. Oxyaena Harass 16:02, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
  1. If the United States government ceased to exist, and the federal reserve became appropriated by corporations, do you think capitalism would fall? Hell no. Those corporations would only become more powerful, as they would be both the only provider of goods and services and the ultimate authority on production, consumption, and everything in between.
  2. So you're advocating for the abolition of property rights too? Great, nice to know in your anarchist hellhole that I can't own anything.
  3. There certainly were many anarchist workers groups, but there were socialist and capitalist workers groups. In fact, labor unions were majority-capitalist. So I don't think you can say that all protests were because of "anarchist workers."
  4. Protesting leads to government action. The protesters knew this: they depended on the government to get off its ass and pass regulatory measures. Otherwise, they'd be a bunch of starving, homeless buggers without jobs that could easily be dismissed by their respective industries.
  5. What is with you and the "oh you need to get informed" argument? I've read Marx, Hegel, Lenin, and Kropotkin, and I found good ideas in each. But I also found disastrous systems and policies that would impoverish all. Stop assuming that anyone who criticizes your ideology just hasn't read it enough, you sound like Jordan Peterson.
  6. How did crime in the Old West go? Oh that's right, you were presumed guilty, killed usually on sight, and if you were black, you were lynched. Not proving your point there.
  7. What makes you think I only go after rapists outside of society? I despise Jeffery Epstein as much as the Branch Dividians.
  8. Finally, I'll leave you with Hobbes: "Life in the state of nature is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." Our founding fathers agreed. All successful countries agree. The burden of proof is on you to justify anarchism.IveBeenFrank (talk) 16:14, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
@IveBeenFrank To point two. So, most forms of leftist thought don't really want to abolish property tight per se. They want to abolish Private Property and replace it with public property (factories, office buildings, etc), and personal property (your house, toothbrush, clothes, etc.). To point five, most of the US still elects sheriffs. Literally all of Texas works off an expanded version of that system. Have I conveyed these positions better than Oxy or would you like further elaboration? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:05, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie My point with the Old West was that community-based law, with no outside control, guidance, and set standards provided by the state, have a tendency to devolve into a brutal reflection of a population's psychological flaws (cruelty, suspicion, presumption of guilt, racism, etc.) On the private property point, do large houses (not mansions per se, but them too) that employ workers (maids, butlers, cleaners, and the like) classify as personal or public property? People who don't own the house still work in it for an income. And yes, you did a much better job of conveying these positions - I appreciate your levelheadedness. IveBeenFrank (talk) 18:47, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
True, Community based law has historically trended isolationist and bigoted. Most anarchists I've encountered believe we should work to change social norms so as to avoid that outcome, though personally I'm unsure how well things would turn out even then. As for property, could you be more specific? Are we talking large houses like a loft apartment, or something along the lines of a multi-bedroom multibath townhouse? As for mansions specifically, most anarchists that I've talked to tend to view them negatively, and believe we ought to turn them into something similar to apartment buildings. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:11, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie I'll separate it into a couple categories.
  1. Apartment complexes where there are employees making their primary income from working there (janitors, security guards, cleaners). Do these people automatically earn the right to a room? If there are no available rooms, does the building become public property?
  2. Same as above, but instead for loft apartments.
  3. Now for townhouses. IveBeenFrank (talk) 19:36, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Mutualists believe in a usufructuary conception of property, namely possession and usage. I also don't give a fuck if you've read Lenin, Marx, Kropotkin or whoever. I`m not a Marxist nor am I a Kropotkinite. All of your "objections" to me showcase someone who is seriously misinformed about not only anarchism but political and economic theory in general. Oxyaena Harass 20:10, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
@IveBeenFrank The first one seems like it'd be messy in implementation from what I know of Anarchist thought, so I'm going to mark that as "I don't know", the second example would probably be personal property, and the third would likely also be personal property. Oxy just refereed to Usufruct, a concept I confess to not knowing much about. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:43, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
@Oxyaena How? I'm able to challenge you on political and economic points. The only area where I seem weak is not knowing every fringe movement of anarchism there is. And second, is this your way of saying you're a mutualist? If so, then it would appear many of your complaints of capitalism would be contradictory. Corporations could still own massive factories manned solely by robots, employing no humans, and entirely own every one of their properties. Second, who determines what is private and personal property, and what happens when someone breaks the rules? Though to be fair, no school of anarchist thought can answer that question; it just devolves into dumb and vague handwaves like "the people will solve it." IveBeenFrank (talk) 20:50, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
The state doesn't "keep corporations in check" it is quite obviously the root of their power. Corporations are literally speaking legal fiction created and empowered with a certain set of privileges and rights by the state. Their property is enforced by the state. Their wealth is quantified in state fiat.

Ending the state involves ending the legal entities known as corporations. Their wealth and ownership of vast amounts of property does not simply persist when the state disappears, considering state fiat is what their wealth is quantified in in the first place. These are not disconnected events that happen in a vacuum.

Free association includes freedom from association. The capacity to use lethal force doesn't somehow disappear in anarchic conditions. If anything, the state enables rape and murder to a greater degree than any institution in history, because it's ultimately free of any accountability due to its monopoly over violence.

I have no doubt there would be greater disincentive to such acts in anarchic conditions than in the present ones. Oxyaena Harass 16:45, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I'll make this simple. Say the United States government ceases to exist tomorrow. I'll wake up and access my internet. Who controls the internet? Some corporation. I still pay them. I have to go to the store to get groceries. I pay money to get those groceries. The grocery store pays money to transporters who pay money to supply-chain corps to get those groceries. That entire process happens without the government's intervention and support. Even if you assume that the government protects legal entities on an abstract level, that's not what happens in reality. And if somehow a corporation's wealth and authority were to fracture after the end of the government, we'd have the economic equivalent of China's warring states period: warlords and factions powerful enough to gain loyalty from supporters and resist collapsing, waging war against other entities of similar size, all the while restricting access and increasing suffering on the people of this country. And why would there be less of an incentive to steal and murder in anarchic conditions? The state doesn't and can't assure that you will continue to be in possession of property, or access goods that you desire. People will become desperate and scared, and turn to crime in the resulting anarchy. People will either lose everything, or will be afraid of losing. This fear has motivated the most barbarous actions in human history; it is your philosophy that contradicts human nature. IveBeenFrank (talk) 17:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
"Corporations are literally speaking legal fiction created and empowered with a certain set of privileges and rights by the state. Their property is enforced by the state. Their wealth is quantified in state fiat." That's simply not true. We can see proof of the opposite by looking at criminal syndicates, who behave in an almost identical manner to corporations, sans the state. A drug cartel, for example, operates off of the same profit incentive structure as a legal corporation, it just lacks the blessing of the state to exist. That's the only difference. As a result, the cartel can't rely on the state's monopoly on force and violence within said state's administrative domain, as they are opposed each other. As a result of that opposition, the cartel must create its own enforcement mechanisms/agencies, which it does. Your premise is extremely unsound. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:09, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
The wealth of cartels are still quantified in state fiat. The cartel becomes its own state. Oxyaena Harass 05:11, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
And, Frank, almost every post you make is a full on gish gallop. I`m not gonna waste my time debating you. Oxyaena Harass 10:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
This is a personal attack, @Sirius. Punish oxy. You can't let this stand, or you would be a hypocrite. — Godless Raven SDAPOe logo.svg talkstalkwalkbalk 🌹 Flag of Europe.svg 11:15, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Man, you're really grasping at straws. As much as I dislike Oxy's hostility, calling someone a gish galloper doesn't equate with even the trolling and assholery you've exhibited in the below thread. Stop trying to start conflicts for entertainment or some misguided sense of "justice." IveBeenFrank (talk) 12:09, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
@Oxyaena Late but I'm replying. You missed my point. I illustrated that both the nation state and corporations are separate group entities, albeit somewhat aligned, and that corporations could exist independent of an existing nation state. They are not, as you put it, "Corporations are literally speaking legal fiction created and empowered with a certain set of privileges and rights by the state." Furthermore, it is one of the ultimate dreams of a corporation to have Company scripWikipedia (company money only valid in company stores, for company products, in company towns, worked by company staff.) regardless of whether the external nationstate exists or not. Again, your premise is unsound. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Oxyaena is right on that point. A corporation (which is not the same thing as a company or other organization) is specifically a legal construct that is regarded as having some of the legal rights and other attributes of a person, such as the ability to make contracts and to be held liable for wrongdoing. A company can exist without a government, but without a legal framework in which to conduct business as a person accorded various legal mechanisms, it can't be a corporation. Drug cartels are not corporations unless they operate one as a front. Functionally, a drug cartel would probably be a sole proprietorship, with company property being owned by the boss rather than a legal construct. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 14:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)



I recently noticed and read a short essay by Oxy. It seemed fine until I happened upon this pair of sentences:

Assassination: The only morally sound way of getting rid of unwanted vermin who tend to infest the upper echelons of society.
Assassin: A variant term for "hero".
I found this disturbing. Oxy, could you explain what you mean by this? It's possible I'm misunderstanding. Twodots (talk) 21:33, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Could you link to it? CoryUsar (talk) 21:44, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Wouldn't this post be better on Oxyaena's talk page, if it needs to exist at all? Also let's bear in mind her age. She's 19 now, I'm sure we can forgive her for something she may have written at 16 or 17-Hastur! (talk) 21:48, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
If she reads this, she should at the very least delete it. Normally I would also ask for a apology statement, but I don't know if she offended anyone in particular by saying this.-Flandres (talk) 21:52, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
It was a spoof of the Devil's Dictionary written way back two three years ago now. Give it a break. Oxyaena Harass 22:12, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
It's an implied threat/endorsement of murder. Old or not, it is not unreasonable for Twodots to be concerned.CoryUsar (talk) 22:51, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Oh jeez, it’s a joke, not a big deal. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 22:57, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
My bad, I hadn't realized it was written so long ago. Also, guys, she just removed it from the page. I partially retract my concerns. Twodots (talk) 23:06, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Oh, and here's the link to the edited version: (talk) 23:09, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Join RationalWiki today! We have tacos, cookies and hard liquor[edit]

It is the perfect way to recruit new users! Change my mind. --Channel 48 WDEM-TV3 (talk) 22:24, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I could certainly could do with some hard liquor. But I overslept this morning and didn't have time to go to liquor store before work. So all I have is beer. Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 22:58, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Imagine drinking alcoholic beverages. Can't relate. Twodots (talk) 23:10, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
You can always have the tacos and cookies until you get old enough to drink. Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 23:16, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Nom-nom-nom, cookies. Twodots (talk) 23:19, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
It's Turkey Day coming soon. If you want a Turkey Day Taco, mash a potato until it's flat, then fry/bake it into a potato-tortilla. Now load it up with turkey, stuffing, cranberry sauce, sweet potatoes... CoryUsar (talk) 23:35, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Turkey taco sounds unironically delicious. JusticeTheFoxGirl (talk) 03:47, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
In general, Turkey is a much more delicious bird than Chicken. If you ever go on a diet, turkey breast is almost pure protein with virtually no fat content, compared to chicken where literally half the calories are from fat. Plus, it's larger than a chicken so you need to kill fewer to get the same amount of meat, so it's much more ethical. CoryUsar (talk) 05:07, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
'Turkey is a much more delicious bird than Chicken' thats a bare faced lie. turkey is chicken that tastes of arse. its sooooo tasty it only gets eaten at one time of the year. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:46, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Agreed. Turkey is dry and flavorless. Absolute garbage. Chicken, on the other hand, is moist, yummy, and chicken-y.Twodots (talk) 16:52, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind tasting a "heritage turkeyWikipedia" or "heirloom turkey" at some point; these are turkeys that a few farmers have specifically maintained separate from the industrial farming modern turkey monstrosity (eg the "broad breasted white" breed) and are more like turkey used to be. Reports from the web indicate heritage turkeys are more flavorful, particularly if you are more a dark bird meat fan (I am one of those types). They are super pricey, though, and as usual with anything outside industrial farming, you have to research and avoid rip-offs. Wild turkey also would be interesting for the hunting crowd (reportedly you do have to cook wild turkey *way* differently, like most game, but if you cook it right it's pretty tasty). America does over-focus on breast meat for some reason, even chicken breast needs help in my opinion. (talk) 22:13, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Everyone's least favorite BoN chimes in with an opinion no one cares about[edit]

I had to do my first firing today[edit]

I work as manager for a very small business, the warehouse and offices are the same building. I have been manager for ~ 2 years. I started working at the business ~10 years ago part time, and I scrapped and worked to gain skills to make myself valuable. I had to fire a guy today because our revenues are down. He has been an absolute workhorse for the business, but his work wasn't pristine and he didn't take criticism well. Also, we have a couple guys who have knowledge on gear but won't step up to teach, and they have some kinda garbage protection of their expertise. I had a sit-down meeting with the CEO and gave up another employee to cut based on over this guy, similar costs, worse utility. The man up's main failing was dealing with the sales team. And I know this guy now, he doesn't put up with shit, and that's FINE, it was never his job to put up with shit, he's literally supposed to ship shit that isn't good. Any time he asked me to I would cover that ground, I would either tell him to do it, or I would tell the salesperson it couldn't be done. That's part of my job. His work was good, but any time he missed, it was sniped out by the very old guard that put me in charge. I didn't give one about the complaints because his work was better than a lot of people in his position I'd seen. The decision was made before I had the meeting, I guess. I have worked for the company for 11 years, and the CEO did not trust my judgement on this one. We had a meeting, I told him who to cut, he disagreed, made calls to the sales team, and at the second meeting he told me it wasn't my decision to make anymore. And I fired the guy. I made sure he would be eligible for unemployment, it was officially a layoff. He oversaw 30% of the orders this year, maintained under a 1.5% RMA rate, which is nutso bonkers good when you see a guy do 2% of orders and get a 2% RMA rate. Specialization is one thing, but I've got a warehouse to run,. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:31, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Garbage, stupid, FU&CK ME, I DON'T KNOW HOW TO STAFF YOUR BUSINESS IF YOU DON'T WANT ME TO DO ITGol Sarnitt (talk) 05:39, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Please tell me you wrote him a glowing recommendation. CoryUsar (talk) 06:08, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, that'll help ease the blow. He might even find a better job as a result-Hastur! (talk) 06:43, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
I like how they decide who gets fired and they pass along the firing duty to you. Reminds me of those American companies that hire a "lay off" expert to make dozens (or hundreds) of people redundant, you know, to save costs, while they pay them a hefty cheque for the service. It's normal to feel shitty afterwards Gol. Bummer you had to do that. Nice that you did what you could to make it as least vicious as possible! ShabiDOO 11:46, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Adopt a Stub (Week 1)[edit]

Adopt meow? Please. (Adopt the stub and I will come and mow your f@cking lawn!)

Happy Saturday my dear nose pickers!

Many have asked me stop the senseless War on Stubs, telling me that it was a huge waste of resources with no tangible results! These "hippies", if you will, stood outside my house with placards, calling me a war criminal! Imagine that. Of course I can assure you that I am NOT a war criminal and that all my intentions were honest. To quiet the anti-war crowd I have ended the War on Stubs.

Our stub problem still remains, however, so I have started an adoption agency to try and resolve it. Each Saturday I will bring an old, forgotten stub to the attention of the fine people of this bar and urge them to take it under their wings. If after 4 weeks of waiting nobody steps forward to help fix the stub, I will seek to either move it to Draft space or nominate it for deletion (depending on what people think is more appropriate.)

This week's Stub of the Week is Anselm. Created in 2008, it's a three sentence stub with no references. I have never heard of the subject matter (unsurprising, seeing as how I am an utter peasant :D) and I have no idea as to why we should have an article on him. But if YOU do, my dear stranger, don't be stingy with your knowledge. Use you understanding of obscure medieval philosophers to improve our stub!

You have until the 19/12/20 (which is four Saturdays from now) to adopt. Hit me up on my talkpage or under this post if you'd like me to deliver the stub to you talkpage.

May your internet connection always be of high quality. - Rairyu75 (Talk) 12:43, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't have a lawn. But I approve of this more positive approach to dealing with stubs. That said, who the fuck is this Anselm fellow? 'Fraid I can't expand on the article, though I'd happily adopt the kitten. Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 12:50, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes. That's the way to do it. Adopt a Stub has the Spud seal of approval.
I also appreciate the Pick of the PopsWikipedia reference.
The man in question was Anselm of CanterburyWikipedia. In fact, I've just gone ahead and moved our page to Anselm of Canterbury too. Spud (talk) 13:26, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I plagiarised added a new section to the article (instead of mowing my lawn), but the cat did not come to mow my lawn. Can I get a goat emoji instead?The 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 talk stalk block 04:32, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

And I'd say that the first Adopt a Stub has been a great success. What was a worthless stub has been turned into a, still short, but perfectly decent little article. Thank you very much @Sqrt-1. And @Rairyu75, give yourself a pat on the back for getting the ball rolling. Spud (talk) 13:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
@Sqrt-1 But of course. Here you go: 🐐🐐🐐🐐🐐. (Also, did you ACTUALLY plagiarise that passage or are you joking? Bro...). @Spud Well, I wanted to nuke all these things, but changed tack when people told me to stop... But whatever, I WILL take all the credit! - Rairyu75 (Talk) 22:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Woot woot, sysop time[edit]

I'm a sysop now. Yay! I can do stuff! I'm excited to be able to help more often and more efficiently. Twodots (talk) 17:21, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome; it was I who demoted you. Use it well. --Goatspeed. See what I'm up toCircularREmail2.gifasoningSee what I've been messing around with 17:31, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, sure thing, dude. I appreciate being trusted, it's a nice feeling. Oh, by the way, I have a quick question: Why is it called demoting if we get more privileges? Isn't it more of a promotion? Twodots (talk) 17:33, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Another quick question: I accidentally pressed "Mark as patrolled" on an edit by someone else. Wtf did I just do? Twodots (talk) 17:36, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
1. It's called "demotion" because everyone's a sysop who isn't an obvious bad-faith editor and who has been around for at least 2 months. Read more here.
2. You just approved an edit made by either a BoN or a new user, that's all. --Goatspeed. See what I'm up toCircularREmail2.gifasoningSee what I've been messing around with 17:39, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Oh, ok. Phew. Glad I didn't screw anything up on my first six minutes on the job. Twodots (talk) 17:40, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
@Twodots Well, you might have, if you patrolled trolling or harassment. The reason it's called demoting is because there are no privileges, only more responsibilities. We are also called janitors. Please read the sysop guide. - Rairyu75 (Talk) 17:46, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Don't worry, it was a beneficial post. Also, thanks. I read the guide a little while ago. Twodots (talk) 17:49, 21 November 2020 (UTC)


These are just some suggestions of reading material for bored bookworms.

We are Legion; We are Bob

A severed head clones itself and saves the human race 2-3 times. Excellent read for sci-fi fans, I would definitely suggest it.


An older book, by Michael Crichton. Fascinating thriller. Fear the ape.


An outwardly comical book, which quickly transforms into a mysterious quest involving queens, locusts, and monsters. A good read. Note: It's a graphic novel.

XKCD: What If?

A hilarious and well-made collection of bizarre questions, answered with science and stick figures. Great for XKCD fans and newbies alike.

Hope you guys like em', if you choose to read any.Twodots (talk) 18:06, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
I've heard of Bone. My brother used to love reading it when we were younger. --Goatspeed. See what I'm up toCircularREmail2.gifasoningSee what I've been messing around with 19:05, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
I have XKCD: What If, and I can tell you it's a great book. Even if you're unimpressed by the normal comics, this one is above and beyond for anyone with scientific interests. IveBeenFrank (talk) 19:12, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
You could try the books The Expanse is based on. Though fair warning; Drummer was created for the show, and in spite of being the most badass battle-bitch in the solar system (fuck you worthless legs, I'm building a fucking mech suit!), she isn't in the books. Plus, Ashford is a much, much better character in the show, being a badass space pirate who's matured quite a bit since his youth and has very good reasons for what he does. Not a fan of Holden, but that's because I feel like the show shouldn't have a main protagonist. CoryUsar (talk) 21:13, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Oh goat I love The Expanse. --Goatspeed. See what I'm up toCircularREmail2.gifasoningSee what I've been messing around with 06:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, can hardly wait for mid-December when season 5 comes out. I skimmed the summaries of the books, I know I know now it's not too much of a surprise, but I'm not sure how they will handle the later seasons. There's a 30 year time skip at some much later point in the books (was that a spoiler? I don't think that's a spoiler), and I don't know how they plan to age the actors much. Maybe let the actors go without makeup and just handwave the whole thing as future-tech which keeps people sexy until their late 130s? Just change the timeskip to 5 years instead? Diverge from the books and create some filler seasons to cover the years between? CoryUsar (talk) 06:58, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────That's cool and all, but ya'll need to to read the Bobiverse trilogy ASAP. Twodots (talk) 19:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

The works of Terry Pratchett. That is all. Kencolt (talk) 00:05, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
city of night john rechy is the last book i read and i highly recommend it. i stress ive never been a rent boy nor a client but i recognise enough elements of the world depicted in my own lived experience that its kind life affirming. im kind of fringe and its not often that i see depictions of lives and worlds that are relatable to my own. it can be lonely and isolating on the fringes of conventional life, its nice to see evidence of what could loosely be described as 'my people' AMassiveGay (talk) 21:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
So... the actor who plays Alex on The Expanse? Apparently he (allegedly) sexually harassed/assaulted several people. And by several, it's closer to "several dozen". He will not return for the 6th and final season. Not sure what they'll do about season 5, considering that's already been filmed. I mean, dammit, I don't want the shows I like to be ruined, but they wouldn't have been ruined if 1) if he had been outed as a molester a decade ago so someone else would've been cast instead anyway, and 2) by making it clear that harassers will be outed, potential perverts will try to keep their urges in check in the first place and eventually we won't have to worry about abusers being kicked off of shows at all. CoryUsar (talk) 17:23, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

In Other News[edit]

Anybody following all the drama in Peru? They just went through three presidents in less than a month. And you thought the USA was bad, hmhmhm...-Flandres (talk) 20:09, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Good for them. In other news, Cusqueña is a fine brew, and all your variations on hmhmhm are still an intensely weird and irritating sign-off. Try vocalising it and hopefully you'll see what I mean. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 21:17, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
I do vocalize it-my friends consider that a sort of "signature trait" of mine. Why should I care what you think of it? Oh, and maybe you should not post in a thread about international issues unless you have something a little more...substantial than whining about my sign-off.,hmhmhmhmhmmhmhmhmhmhmhmhmhmhmhm....-Flandres (talk) 21:45, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
You should care about it because it adds nothing and makes you sound like a dick. Your friends really won't miss it, I promise. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 22:10, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
And you care about this because...actually, please answer that on my talkpage. Find something better to do because you should not derail honest attempts at saloon discussion with things that, let's be honest, only you view as a priority. My god, the sheer sadness of somebody who sees my fucking sign off as this pressing issue, hmhmhmhm...-Flandres (talk) 22:15, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
It's poor form to piss & moan when someone answers a question you asked them. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 22:52, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Again, take it to my talkpage-I will try and give more serious replies there. Of course doing so will be embarrassing because it implies you think THIS is a major issue, hmhmhm...-Flandres (talk) 22:55, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Take what to your talk page? If you're determined to ignore good (and sincere) advice, then more fool you. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 23:17, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
I've had Cristal. I'm fond of pisco, too. Gonna have to try cusqueña-Hastur! (talk) 22:28, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Highly recommended. I've had pisco sours - never tried it straight. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 22:52, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Politicians are like diapers; you need to change them often, for the same reasons. CoryUsar (talk) 22:57, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
I just hope they have better luck in their upcoming presidential election-that is April next year by the way.-Flandres (talk) 23:01, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Closing Thoughts[edit]


After the last "thread" on solipsism I find it is slowly losing it's power over me. But I wanted to know that if the language argument is so strong, and I agree with this, then why do so many say it is true? Also if our brains according to neuroscience already "hallucinate" reality in that it constructs it based on our sensations then isn't that an argument in solipsism's favor? Also what about dreams and how we can create a landscape with all these people in it? And where is the division between inner and outer if it's all sensation. I know I want to put this to bed but there just seem to be so many questions surrounding it all.Machina (talk) 21:56, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

  1. People still believe / say all manner of daft stuff in the face of overwhelming evidence.
  2. No. You still have an inner voice / language that engages with that brain-constructed interpretation of sensory information. See language argument.
  3. You still have language in dreams. See language argument.
  4. No such division exists. "Inner" (mind) is just a weird function of a really complex arrangement of "outer" (brain matter).
Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 22:37, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

So there is no division between inner and outer, it's all just sensation? Then what about how some would say that dreams are the strongest argument for solipsism:

I mean I know that dreams are different from reality in that once you know you are dreaming you in effect become god and I have had a few lucid dreams. Plus the only way I know I am dreaming is when I wake from that reality. But I can see why some might think dreams would be an argument, but then you run into the problem of where did this material come from.Machina (talk) 00:01, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

One day poof you exist (or poof you exist as do others and somehow they all disappear and you are the only one left). For whatever reason you create a reality in your mind, an extremely bizarre one by the way, in a universe of billions of stars you are stuck on one little planet with animals and plants and an extremely strange "sentient" race with a curious and extremely elaborate history which you've created in a world with consistent physical rules and languages which your mind has invented, though you only understand one or two of them. You also invented accents and hundreds of different cultures. The characters you created, for whatever reason are extremely flawed, including yourself. For whatever reason you've created your own persona with mental problems. You've created a world where people pointlessly suffer. For whatever reason you have given up or have forgotten how to control this reality that you've created and you've become a character stuck in the rules you've created with no ability to change them. And you suffer in this world you've created. And oh...also you've somehow completely forgotten how it is you ended up here. Did you just gradually lose track of how it is this world emerged from your mind? Or did you willingly trap yourself in this world robbing yourself of the memory of how you got here and keeping yourself from being able to change the rules or escape? Either way here you are, but of all the things you didn't rob yourself of, it's the ability to play sleuth and somehow figure out all of this information on your own...that indeed the sum of everything is just whats going on in your mind and you did indeed create everything and yet somehow cast yourself afloat in this world with no memory of how you created it and no ability to change things. Or perhaps after the "poof" you exist and everything is just your mind...your mind instantly created two things, one level which created the structure of this world and another level where you trapped yourself as a character in it doomed to pointlessly suffer with no control over it yet one day perhaps figure it all out. the simplest explanation? Seriously? ShabiDOO 01:20, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello guys, I have no idea what solipsism is so can someone tell me?The 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 talk stalk block 05:34, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Solipsism is the idea that you can only PROVE you yourself exist. Everything else could very well be some complex illusion, or so the concept goes.-Flandres (talk) 14:39, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Machina goes well beyond the definition Flandres has given (if we were to go only by the first part there is in fact nothing that controversial about it). Machina takes the position that indeed, his mind IS the only thing that exists. He has struggled for months now to defend his case which has consisted entirely of citing bad internet discussion pages and abusing "Occam's razor" as though a the fact that a position is parsimonious that is EVIDENCE in favour of his case, which is not a reasonable application of the razor (at best it should be used as a tool to weed out which theories to NOT take seriously or perhaps DISCREDIT overly complex theories...but in absolutely no case pretend that being parsimonious is somehow PROOF). Laugh my ass off. ShabiDOO 14:53, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, I was just trying to be anodyne.-Flandres (talk) 15:25, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
No your definition was fine Flandres it's just some people like Machina go beyond a disposition towrads solipsism to "the know solipsism is the case" which is very extreme. ShabiDOO 16:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

@Shabidoo. May I please use your paragraph (or parts thereof) as a spoken word sample. In a song for by band? Thank you. (talk)

Yes by all means do. Post a video some time if you have a chance! ShabiDOO 14:53, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Don't listen to Shabi, they get it wrong every single time. I am not making the case for it as I clearly don't want it to be true. I just want to sure I covered any counterpoints that might be made by solipsists. He is getting it wrong in that I am asserting that my mind is all that exists when in all my posts it's about "how can I know anyone else besides ME exists". I don't know if I can prove I exist and that requires several assumptions to make, but the key point the Shabi keeps ignoring in everything posted is that I CAN'T PROVE OTHER PEOPLE EXIST OR HAVE MINDS. That is the key issue here, nothing else they THINK is the problem which is why I almost stopped listening to them. I don't want this to be true but it's hard to ignore those who make arguments towards it (sort of). Like saying how it is the default position because of Occam's Razor because we cannot be sure of anything else besides our minds: To reiterate, I don't want this to be true but I don't know what to do about those who argue or provide some support for it.Machina (talk) 04:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Machina three things things: you keep talking as though you take a hard solipsistic position but then you deny what is it? Why don't you throw out a likelihood then to give us an idea of how likely you think it is the case. It will help us understand things. Would you say there is a 90% chance that your mind is all that exists? 10%? If you are afraid of giving a number then you can word it as: "highly probable" or "somewhat probable".
Do you still stand by your claim after all the absurdities of solipsism has been pointed out to you, that your mind being the only thing that exists is actually the "simplest explanation"?
You can use the pronouns he, him, his, himself with me. ShabiDOO 13:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Because we only have access to the immediate experience before us, well I do (to argue from the problem). I mean what reason can there be to think other people have minds?

"I don't think that solipsism states that nothing exists besides our consciousness, it merely states that we can never know anything about what exists outside our consciousness because we will never experience anything other than our consciousness. which means there is no reason to believe other people are actually other minds, or to believe that the external world's contents will 'continue to exist' when we are not experiencing them.

All I have is my own experience and it saddens me that anything else beyond that is faith based.Machina (talk) 02:37, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Could you please answer these rwo simple straight forward questions? ShabiDOO 03:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Ah yes, remember back when Machina's existential fluff was one of the most annoying things about the Saloon Bar? Good times. --Goatspeed. See what I'm up toCircularREmail2.gifasoningSee what I've been messing around with 03:35, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Turning conspiracy theory talking points into a drinking game![edit]

Every time the New World Order is mentioned- take a drink of beer

Every time the Anti-Christ is mentioned- Take a shot of Whiskey

Every time Obama is blamed- take a shot of Sake

Perfect drinking game. --Channel 48 WDEM-TV3 (talk) 00:24, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

But then we'd die of alcohol poisoning, just like They want us to!CoryUsar (talk) 00:39, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Fun bit of trivia, the word "sake" (though it's usually said "osake", written お酒) in Japanese is the generic word for alcohol. Their word for what we call sake is, depending on your transliteration, "nihonshū" or "nihonshuu"; the kanji for it is 日本酒, literally "Japan alcohol". And contrary to popular belief, the process of making sake is much closer to beer than wine. It's a strange drink, though, you either have to get the really cheap or really nice brands; the cheap stuff is what you warm or use in a shogun, the good ones are excellent on their own. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:06, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
And every time a religious nutjob prays for 100% of all public offices from Alabama to Washington State to be won by Republicans (because the only ways that Dems ever win anything is because of voter fraud; supporting democracy is FRAUDULENT, and undermining it is PATRIOTIC AND MACHISMO-Y), drink as well. I'd participate, but I'm not 21 yet. Also, nowadays so many people are divorced from reality that my poor liver just wouldn't be able to take the abuse. --Goatspeed. See what I'm up toCircularREmail2.gifasoningSee what I've been messing around with 06:09, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Fun:Conspiracy Talking Point Drinking Game --Channel 48 WDEM-TV3 (talk) 15:38, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Great video on LGBTQ acceptance[edit]

Staying alive even when it makes no sense[edit]

Things have been bad. I have failed the things I’m supposed to do (e.g. university work etc). I have tried and failed to get a job. I have tried and failed to get welfare. I have tried and failed to find somewhere to leave for more than three months at a time. The things that were good in my life — my interests, my partner, my social life — either longer exist in my life or no longer bring me joy. I have no reason to hope I will get better. I have no reason to hope that the world will get better — just look at climate change, COVID, modern fascism, etc. I have no reason to believe that anyone really cares whether I stick around. And yet I do. I have no idea why, but I just stay alive. I don’t know how I do it, I don’t know how long I can do it for, but for now, I’m still here, and I hope to stay here for a while longer. Why am I posting this? Because I got paid money for the first time in months and could afford a full bottle of alcohol (tequila), all to myself, instead of mooching from my “friends” (ppl who hate me but feel sorry for me). So I can drink as much as I want with no guilt. And that’s what I did and that’s why I’m posting. Stay Cool everybody. And also, I should mention that I am disabled and also LGBT (I will not explain precisely do not ask), so most the people I met in society see me as a degenerate and a useless eater. So that’s nice. Ppl don’t want me to exist, my life doesn’t want me to exist. But fuck it. I guess I’m just gonna do it anyway. I don’t need a dang reason. — Unsigned, by: / talk

Spite. Spite is always a good motivator. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:53, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
nil illegitimi carborundum sed carborundum illegitimi. (Don't let the bastards grind you down, but grind them down.) Anna Livia (talk) 17:19, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Uh, no, the world is not getting worse.
I wouldn't recommend watching all of Kurzgesagt's videos while in a bad mood (they often cause existential despair), here are a few good ones to watch.
We are curing all diseases
Overpopulation is a myth
The Egg. Just... watch. And like the video; you are only liking yourself.
Massive Wars may be a thing of the past CoryUsar (talk) 17:23, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Just ignore runaway climate change, growing inequality, and the grand and dramatic lowering of poverty essentially being a myth supported by pseudo-statistics.-Flandres (talk) 17:25, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
If you think absolute poverty is growing, then why are life expectancies massively rising in almost all countries? You can argue that the lion's share of economic growth has gone to fewer and fewer people, but the people at the bottom still have gotten slightly more than they did in the past. Even the very worst country has a life expectancy of mid-50's, which is close to a decade more than the US was in 1900. If you must have a cynical view about it, it's because diseased corpses are difficult for sweatshops to exploit. CoryUsar (talk) 17:52, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
One, I did not say it was growing, I said its reduction is not as dramatic as hyped. Two, common measures used to quantify extreme poverty are quite flawed-I actually believe a great article on that was linked here some time ago! It was related to Philip Alston, I think...-Flandres (talk) 17:56, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
I'd argue that life expectancies going up 20-30 years is indication of a massive reduction in extreme poverty. Plus, I believe you have an extremely Eurocentric view that has colored your view of places like India and Sub-Saharan Africa. While Nigeria, for instance, still has huge numbers of people in poverty, literally half of the people actually do have a middle class lifestyle, with cell phones and whatnot. On paper, they don't make much money, but then, the rents are much cheaper as a result; GDP per capita tends to exaggerate inequality on an international scale for this reason (and make poor Americans and Europeans look wealthier than they are as well as make filthy-rich Africans look poorer than they are). CoryUsar (talk) 18:03, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
When have I mentioned eurocentrism? What? Again, Philip Alston, myths about massive poverty reduction, blah blah blah.-Flandres (talk) 18:05, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
It's basically the reason that a lot of us look down upon the rest of the world with pity. It's an unconscious bias, and it's important to understand the problem of The One Single Story CoryUsar (talk) 18:08, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
So I think bad things are happening in Syria, Armenia, India, Hungary, Brazil, Italy, Peru, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Laos, the USA, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and scores of other places(oh and across the globe because you apparently have no idea what effects climate change will have and have never read a UN report on that ever) because I am a arrogant white person? Wow. How...sad.-Flandres (talk) 18:12, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
No, you think ONLY bad things are happening in those countries. We all do to some extant; our minds arent capable of understanding all the nuances in just one single country, let alone 200+ of them. It's easier to just say "Bangladesh = Overpopulated Hellhole of Poverty and Overpopulation" or similar with any other country. -CU (talk) 19:08, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Actually, I don't.. I just do not think the world as a whole is on a trajectory to keep getting better, and numerous ongoing problems help prove that. You misunderstand my position entirely.-Flandres (talk) 19:11, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Ah then I apologize, though I disagree on the trajectory of the world. -CU (talk) 19:15, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the apology. Although I must recommend you read more about the effects of climate change before you engage in Steven Pinker-esque idiocy.-Flandres (talk) 19:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)


Is this a good word for describing Donald Trump? Anna Livia (talk) 17:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
whats wrong with 'twat' for describing trump? AMassiveGay (talk) 18:14, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
A blithering mitherer. Bongolian (talk) 18:36, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
How about this:

Is The

--Goatspeed. See what I'm up toCircularREmail2.gifasoningSee what I've been messing around with
AMassiveGay - mithering rhymes with slithering etc, and has appropriate definitions.
There is also this word. Anna Livia (talk) 23:47, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Only ever heard mithering used with the long i ("eye"), and never by anyone south of Sheffield. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 23:59, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
after all this time i am surprised no one has mentioned trumping means farting. AMassiveGay (talk) 00:05, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
I think it never took off as a Trump-related insult because it was mainly employed as a semi-polite euphemism. Not much invective oomph as a result. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 00:34, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Helena Bonham Carter - if one has only read the word, and comes from the M25 English pronunciation region then the words rhyme. Anna Livia (talk) 20:37, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Sure, but you'd get some seriously blank looks if you used it in conversation with the short i sound. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 21:23, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
"Trump is the nacho"? No, that makes him sound good. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 20:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Murder apologia[edit]

Has anyone else listened to "Everywhere At The End Of Time" yet?[edit]

Since my grandpa with dementia passed away from COVID at his nursing home, these albums became very personal to me. Rockford the Roe (talk) 02:29, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I tried to listen to it. Quite depressing, really, and didn’t get the promised dementia (probably because I listened to it for 10 minutes and stopped). I have no idea how and why someone made this, but at least the album art looks... well... weird, but it fits quite well with the music. Overall, 6/10. Maybe if I was able to gain more knowledge about such music I may have somewhat appreciated it. Pretty unique though.The 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 talk stalk block 04:17, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Scots language Wikipedia[edit]

I actually didn't hear about this until this morning. Maybe it's more widely known in Scotland/UK at this point.

The 'Scots' that wis uised in this airticle wis written bi a body that’s mither tongue isna Scots. Please impruive this airticle gin ye can.

A 12-year through 19-year old native-English speaker from North Carolina (User:AmaryllisGardener) wrote about half the articles on the Wiki, causing a shitstorm after being caught.[3][4] Bongolian (talk) 02:47, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

The linguist in me finds this kerfluffle rather intriguing. Scots lies somewhere on the border between 'English dialect' and 'separate language'; as the old saw goes, a language is a dialect with an army and a navy, and Scotland has had neither of its own since 1707 at the most recent. There really isn't a prescribed, canonical version of Scots that gives anyone a platform to criticize another's usage. The most famous exponent of Scots is probably Robt. Burns, and he wrote standard English grammar and swapped in Scots dialect forms as desired. This is what the kid from NC did too. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 05:51, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
I have edited the Scots language Wikipedia as S.P.McKay. Ah didnae do nae harm. I also didn't claim to be Scottish (although I didn't say I wasn't).Spud (talk) 06:10, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
I've watched every episode of Burnistoun at least three times, maybe I should join up-Hastur! (talk) 06:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
@Smerdis of Tlön This was a mildly interesting discussion on the wiki that should help demonstrate the issue.-Hastur! (talk) 06:29, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

A far right micronation[edit]

Empire of New Europe, perfect for aspiring white nationalists! I honestly find it to be completely disturbing. --Channel 48 WDEM-TV3 (talk) 03:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

What in the fuck am I reading? Is this just some weird Nazi wish fulfillment thing? Revolverman (talk) 03:30, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Either that, or it's a satire of neo-Nazis and WNs in America. --Goatspeed. See what I'm up toCircularREmail2.gifasoningSee what I've been messing around with 04:05, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Poe's Law has been firmly in effect in America for quite some time now. Artificius (talk) 12:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
On the way to the dentist this morning (which by the way- it fucking sucked) and I mentioned it to my brother and mom. They gave me weird, confused expressions. This micronation is a very weird one, maybe even worth an article about. Its policies are within the mission scope. --Channel 48 WDEM-TV3 (talk) 23:19, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Most Internet oriented micronations seem to basically be a kind of role-playing fantasy thing that people online do. (As you might guess, they have a convention called MicroCon, natch. And there are a lot of motivations for why micronations micronation.) There are hardcore racists in any sort of fandom, unfortunately, but usually they are a small minority. Most things on this Wiki seem more silly than anything else, such as a Micronation version of the "Eurovision" contest. (talk) 01:06, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Nick Land[edit]

We should do an article on a pompous nazi "philosopher" named Nick Land. Look him up. HairlessCat (talk) 15:17, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Given the topic name, I was hoping for a Nickelodeon Theme Park. This is a bigger disappointment than when I went to the Barbie museum only to find out it was dedicated to Klaus Barbie. CoryUsar (talk) 15:34, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Should teach him how to stop being such a fearful and hateful sadomasochist obsessed with big daddy fascism/racism. HairlessCat (talk) 16:50, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Land is legit philosopher. He just also has insane political views as well. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:41, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
How is he a legit philosopher? It just seems like sci-fi artificial intelligence posthuman Matrix stuff mixed with his ethnostate white supremacist garbage. HairlessCat (talk) 01:35, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie HairlessCat (talk) 02:56, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
@HairlessCat He used to lecture in philosophy courses back in the late 1980s, which implies he has a degree in that subject. Then from what I know of him he lost his shit and became a neo-reactionary, more or less helping to kickstart that entire trend. Also, Nozick is considered a serious philosopher, and he literally just spouted libertarian nonsense for most of his career. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie The neoreactionary page says he sort of lost his mind from amphetamine psychosis. HairlessCat (talk) 15:13, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
@HairlessCat Possibly, I don't know the details of Land's break from reality. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:07, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

"Defund the Police" was a Stupid Slogan[edit]

Opinion piece from Teh Graniud. Basically, The overwhelming majority of the public believes there's extensive racism in the police system and that something should be done about it, but as soon as they hear "Defund the Police" they lose interest. Many do agree with reducing the scope of the police by establishing separate departments, that for mental health cases you should the guy whose job description is "wrangling crazies" instead of the guy whose job description is "puts bullets in people", and many other things that are ostensibly meant by the Defund the Police crowd. Problem is, that's not the image that the slogan conjures up. CoryUsar (talk) 16:07, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, that is the problem with soundbite politics-there are of course exceptions, but in most cases little meaningful policy is conveyed by a trendy slogan. Of course, if you do not state clearly what you want your opponent gets to do it for you.-Flandres (talk) 16:10, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
At least put a good soundbite.
Save the Whales means ending whaling as well as reducing pollution into the oceans which works its way up the food chain. We may not know about every nuance of the policy, but we have a general sense of what the overall goal is.
Free Nelson Mandela means we want Mandela released from prison, and it implies we support his cause of ending Apartheid (though not necessarily his methods). It doesn't mean we are giving away a bunch of Nelson Mandelas to anyone who wants one. CoryUsar (talk) 16:24, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Well, why don't we make a better soundbite? Any ideas? Twodots (talk) 16:29, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
I don't know, as a suggestion...
Reform the Police
Take away their toys
Cops, not Killers
End Qualified Immunity (bit of a mouthful, slogans should avoid polysyllable words)
Rethink Force (actually I like this one, a lot of meaning in "force")
Hands off the Trigger
Help, not Hurt
Demilitarization Now!
Fund Internal Affairs! (OK, silly, but if more policing is good, then policing the police must be hyper-good) CoryUsar (talk) 16:32, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
"Rethink force" is the best one I think. It already sounds like a good name for an activist group or something.-Flandres (talk) 16:35, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
As I've said before and it bears repeating, the only reason there is discussion of whether the slogan is good or not, is to avoid discussing the real issue; law-enforcement is too militarized and is unaccountable. But because conservatives always make bad faith arguments, they were literally also going to accuse people who support even a modicum of reform as "extremists who want black and brown people to kill you". Do you support they way we have centered our armed law enforcement around slave catchers? Do you support armed law enforcement killing indiscriminately? Do you support armed law enforcement harassing the populace with no accountability? Or do you support reorganizing police from top to bottom? Anything else is sealioning.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 17:45, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────That's cool and all, but we're thinking of slogans right now. Twodots (talk) 17:48, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

We already have a perfectly good slogan already. ACAB. Oxyaena Harass 18:01, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Oxy, you've completely missed the point. Twodots (talk) 18:15, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Horseshoe theory strikes again, tsk tsk, "ACAB" is a slogan that is also heavily used by racist skinheads. (talk) 18:17, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Also, why'd you add the second "already"? Seems a bit excessive. Twodots (talk) 18:18, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
@RipCityLiberal If the slogan is so bad that it dissuades would-be supporters, then it should be replaced. This isn't an argument over the slogan "Black Lives Matter", which literally means "the lives of black people have value" and the detractors have to do a lot of stretching to change the meaning to "black lives are more important than any other lives". "Black Lives Matter" means that as a society, we should act as if Black people are people. No, the slogan "Defund the Police" literally means "take funds away from the police", and its proponents are the ones who have to do the stretching to say "we want to demilitarize the police, specialize police services so the guy you call for your mentally ill father is not the same guy you call to put bullets into burglars, put the funding into social services so people don't turn to crime in the first place, etc". The detractors can just say "defund the police means defunding the police". CoryUsar (talk) 18:31, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. Twodots (talk) 19:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
You find me a single person who honestly only dislikes the slogan "Defund the Police", but supports reallocating the resources we currently give to law enforcement into community programs that support a new form of policing, and I'll show you they're full of shit. "I can't breathe" didn't make people pay attention, "Say Her Name" didn't move the needle. The conversation is finally moving in a productive direction, stop trying to reach the people who were never gonna be in your court, and make the change necessary.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:48, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
I was being sardonic, and horseshoe theory focuses far too much on superficial appearances, on the how and not the why. Oxyaena Harass 19:50, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Something like "It is both PROTECT and SERVE"? Aloysius the Gaul 19:53, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
@Rip Uh... the needle has been moving slowly for some time. BLM is responsible for the rapid adoption of body-cams for the police, which has in turn resulted in quite a bit of footage of the police fucking up. Not sure how much body-cams have actually reduced police cock-ups, but it's nice to actually see them in action whereas in previous decades they could literally make up any story they wanted rather than fitting the story to the actual footage of the event. It's the videos, not the slogans, that are causing the change. CoryUsar (talk) 19:59, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
But even that isn't enough when they will literally lie even when the video evidence refutes their statements. Like this, or this and this too! The entire infrastructure of law enforcement must be changed, to regain the trust of communities. But yes let's debate slogans.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:15, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── If slogans matter as little you're as trying to argue, then why not go full bore with Fuck Tha Police, and have a kickass rally anthem to boot? I presume you'd agree that'd be poor campaign strategy, though? Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 01:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Bullshit argument. Fuck the police is incendiary and violent. Defund is call to action. Fuck off.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 04:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Fuck Tha Police is also the slogan of my campaign to give the LAPD chlamydia. CoryUsar (talk) 14:55, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Sounds like the name for a specifically themed stripper hiring service as well. Sirius (dog star / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png) 14:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@RipCityLiberal I don't mind what adjectives you use to describe FTP as long as we're agreed that it's clearly possible for a slogan to be alienating and counterproductive. Once that's admitted, it follows that it's better to have a slogan that isn't alienating and counterproductive, and that arguments re. a slogan's wider appeal and impact are worthy of a good deal more serious consideration than you're currently giving Defund the Police.

You're right that most of the arguments levelled against DTP are almost entirely in bad faith, but that doesn't even begin to excuse adopting a slogan that makes those bad faith arguments so fucking easy. If your slogan gives your opponents a cheap & easy attack line and forces you to waste a significant chunk of your time explaining why defund =/= abolish, then it's a bad fucking slogan.

Like I said last time this came up, contrast with summat like Murder By Cop Must Stop. It's literally impossible to argue against on its face or its substance, and it forces any cop apologist into weaselly prevarication re. specific instances of MBC, or its wider prevalence. I shouldn't have to point out that this is far more favourable rhetorical ground to be fighting on. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 01:14, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I think the standard weaseling is "but but but Black people kill so many more Black people than the cops do!", which ignores that A) while there's insufficient legal recourse, there's a lot more of it than there is for a death by cop, B) being killed by the police itself has a far, far more psychologically damaging impact on a society than death by random street violence, and this may surprise you, but C) those killings are ALSO the fault of a failed justice system, as those killings were the result of decades of inadequate access to the legal system which resulted in a culture of personally settling disputes through violence instead of going to the authorities. CoryUsar (talk) 04:36, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
@Helena Bonham Carter You're assumptions, and a lot of other users assumptions about this movement, is that the other side is debating in good faith or with logical reasoning. This is patently false. It doesn't matter what language you use, the other side will reduce it to the argument that they want to have, no matter what language is used. Fundamentally, those opposed to police reform don't oppose it because reformers don't use the correct language, they like the way the system is currently set-up. This isn't a new phenomenon, it has been present since America built police around the established system of slave catchers. Defund the Police, or even Abolish the Police, isn't incendiary and it isn't counter-productive, it is a policy agenda. It is also designed to make people uncomfortable and make them think about what role police actually has in their day to day life. Most (white) people have fleeting police interactions, while black and brown people are constantly interacting with a system that is designed to limit them.
Your "Murder by Cop Must Stop" is cute, but only addresses one portion of the police problem. If police stopped killing people indiscriminately would that help the solution? Yes. But the entire system is designed to oppress people; traffic violations, drug violations, vagrancy and loitering. All of these aren't enforced equally across racial and socio-economic lines. This doesn't even get into the issues of the criminal justice side. If you are finding people are unwilling to learn about the motivations behind a movement, they were never going to support it anyway. This entire exercise is pointless.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 17:45, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Newer Hit-List[edit]

I'll be updating this one every so often.

Twodots (talk) 17:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Is this a list of stubs or something? A lot of these are not stubs. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 20:12, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Nope, not stubs. It's actually a list of pages with naked URLs. Twodots (talk) 21:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Postcolonial feminism[edit]


I have to ask, why are hijabs oppressive? To many Middle Eastern women, wearing of burqas and hijabs can be seen as an act of rebellion against Western colonialism and imperialism. Feminist imperialismWikipedia, if you will. To apply Western norms forcibly onto non-Western cultures is arguably an act of eurocentrism, and colonialist thinking.

The postcolonial feminist movements look at the gendered history of colonialism and how that continues to affect the status of women today. In the 1940s and 1950s, after the formation of the United Nations, former colonies were monitored by the West for what was considered social progress. The definition of social progress was tied to adherence to Western socio-cultural norms. The status of women in the developing world has been monitored by organizations such as the United Nations. As a result, traditional practices and roles taken up by women, sometimes seen as distasteful by Western standards, could be considered a form of rebellion against colonial rule. Some examples of this include women wearing headscarves or female genital mutilation. These practices are generally looked down upon by Western women, but are seen as legitimate cultural practices in many parts of the world fully supported by practicing women.


Western feminism is Western-centric, as is arguments of rationalism, reason, and other Western metanarratives that are forced unto other peoples as somehow being universally applicable when that is not really the case. Rationalism should only be seen as a Western metanarrative, liberalism and mainstream feminism are likewise examples of Westernism. Of Westerncentric metanarratives that are forcibly applied to other cultures with radically different metanarratives. Oxyaena Harass 18:47, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

lol. whats next, you defend sharia? dhimmitude? FGM? — Godless Raven SDAPOe logo.svg talkstalkwalkbalk 🌹 Flag of Europe.svg 19:05, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Don't be thick. Hijabs or headscarves aren't equal to burkas. I don't think even Oxy is arguing that. IveBeenFrank (talk) 19:10, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Wait until you find out what her views on North Korea are. You are in for a ride. — Godless Raven SDAPOe logo.svg talkstalkwalkbalk 🌹 Flag of Europe.svg 19:37, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
I don't see how a garment which is not optional in several Muslim countries and virtually obligatory under pressure in many others which puts a highly disproportionate expectation that women as opposed to men make almost all of the efforts in terms of *LMAO* modesty *LMAO* is "empowering". Having spent half a year (where women covering up is NOT optional) in Iran and visited a dozen Muslim countries I can fairly confidently say it is mostly a form of female subjugation permitting male privilege and control wrapped up in family honour and gender power structures. The fact that the overwhelming majority of Muslim (or ex-Muslim) women who by, say the 2nd or 3rd generation of living in a secular society take their coverings off once social or familial pressure becomes minimal or goes away, tells you just how much of a "choice" it is for many women. Of course some who face no coercion do choose not to wear it, most do not once they truly truly truly have a choice. I find it most of the time extremely offensive that one gender is disproportionately expected to pay a price for male sexual harassment when the answer is clamping down on the harassment...not female discomfort and shame. If it is TRULY a choice I entirely respect their choice to wear it. It is rarely a choice in the Muslim world and a dubious choice for first generation migrants. There are many other ways to express your anti-colonialism without contributing to a mostly sexist custom. ShabiDOO 19:30, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
They also live in an environment where headscarves are stigmatized. All too often progress is equated with Western cultural mores, which is Eurocentric and racist. My choice of topic, the hijab, was deliberate, mind you. I knew it would garner a reaction that would also serve my point well. Now, I`m not arguing in favor of a sexist custom, I`m critiquing general notions that Westernization equals progress. I acknowledge your response, Shabidoo, and you have valid points. Again, I`m not disagreeing with you here, I`m critiquing the foundations behind mainstream feminism. Nothing more, nothing less. Oxyaena Harass 19:46, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Have you ever considered that while there are bad reasons for the stigmatization, that there could be good reasons for it to be stigmatized? CoryUsar (talk) 19:50, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Good or bad has nothing to do with this conversation. If something is stigmatized, then people are more likely to act in a way that avoids said stigma. Good or bad has nothing to do with it. Also, may I offer a paper for your reading pleasure? Oxyaena Harass 19:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Hijabs are not inherently opressive, but you must admit they do have opressive utility. This question is not necessarily a black and white duopoly.-Flandres (talk) 19:55, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

(ec) Oxy is going to have to decide between defending China and the Uighur Muslims the Communists enslave. — Godless Raven SDAPOe logo.svg talkstalkwalkbalk 🌹 Flag of Europe.svg 19:53, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Good answer, Flandres. Black and white hats do not exist, there are only shades of grey. I`m trying to get people to think, to critically examine their own assumptions. Oxyaena Harass 19:59, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

But even though "hijab" also refers to the seclusion of women from men in the public square, that's not patriarchal? Ariel31459 (talk) 01:37, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Some Islamic countries are somewhat more open-minded (though I wouldn't call it anything approaching Western liberalism).
The most Islamic country our company has an office in is Malaysia. Head coverings (tudung to the Malay) are not required there, but most Islamic Malay wear it. Now, prior to the 1970s... no one really did. A certain revolution happened in IranWikipedia and from a lot of sources the reverberations from this is a huge reason why the hijab has been popularized in a lot of Islam nations.
From one perspective, Oxy is right -- the Shah was a dictator that was in power because the US and UK decided to say "fuck Iranian democracy"Wikipedia, and he was pushing Iran towards Western style economic modernism... some people didn't like that, and the hijabs (which was banned in the 1930s) was a symbol of "the resistance"). From another perspective... the suppression of women angle is right, too, at least, viewed from the angle of the policies the Ayatollah implemented (in spite of women being a significant part of the revolution). A lot of Iranian women weren't happy about the fundamentalist bullshit being pushed by Khomeini to be honest so it's not a binary, some people were probably pissed at the Shaw and then also pissed at what Khomeini became. Those who were smart certainly didn't enjoy the fundamentalist cultural bullshit (among other things), and they left the country in drovesWikipedia (a lot of this involved the anti-intellectual Iranian Cultural RevolutionWikipedia as well, but it is no surprise that anti-intellectualism comes hand in hand with repressive patriarchal policies designed to control the masses and disguised in religion).
Malaysia's not in the same boat, though. There is gender inequality in Malaysia but it is not anywhere near the same scale as most Arabic countries -- there are significant equality movements etc. The covering is in some ways half an identity thing borrowed from Arab Islam. There is a significant minority that don't wear any covering (and of course a significant minority that have gone Arab conservative and will yell on social media about these people of course, but whatever). But I'm not sure I'd automatically label the coverings as "patriarchal oppression" there. At least, no more or less than any other Asian society. The burqa type crap is very rare over there. I'd actually say this applies to a fair bit of Islam in Asia, which tends to be not quite as fundamentalist as Arab Islam (although IMHO probably too conservative for their own good).
This is why in some ways to me things like the headscarf bans are rather silly, because the problem of Islamic terrorism is a few radicalized fundamentalist idiots, and not a widespread modesty oriented statement of identity.
TLDR-Nuance,world not black white, etc. (talk) 04:07, 24 November 2020 (UTC)


When somebody throws reason under the bus as merely "a Western metanarrative", there really isn't any need to engage further with the brainfarts thus derived. Reason is universal, and anyone denying that forfeits the right to be taken seriously.

This kind of guff wouldn't be tolerated if she was gibbering about homeopathy or astral projection, so stop indulging it because it's framed in political terms you feel more sympathetic towards. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 21:04, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

You have to admit it would be pretty funny if you had an article claiming rationality was white supremacy. The fact one of your regulars actually thinks this is funny enough. Pathology (talk) 06:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
This person's views are not at all representative of our mission. She's alienated almost the entire community with all the toxicity she constantly spews here on the SB. Heck, in our article on cultural relativism we even point out that pretending that "muh culture" is more important than women's rights and human rights is a bit much. --Goatspeed. See what I'm up toCircularREmail2.gifasoningSee what I've been messing around with 06:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Why is progress so often equivocated to Westernization? Bullshitting about "muh rationality" still doesn't answer the question. Oxyaena Harass 13:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
It's a mystery. People claiming Europeans contributes more to progress than Africans probably just hate the color of the skin. Pathology (talk) 13:56, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
It's not that much of a mystery if only you apply a little critical analysis. Oxyaena Harass 14:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
@Pathology That ignores that something like 1/4 of American culture is African-American in origin, and probably another 1/4 Jewish. Depending on whether or not you consider Italians to be White (150 years ago they weren't!), now you've got a good chunk of American cuisine, plus Chinese food. CoryUsar (talk) 15:06, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
@Helena Bonham Carter You're conflating rationalism with rationality, there's a difference. Maybe don't resort to kneejerk reactions and assumptions and try to critically examine your own assumptions for once? Oxyaena Harass 15:08, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Man, just imagine how shitty music would be without black Americans. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 20:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@DuceMoosolini I just tried that as a thought experiment and broke my brain a little. I don't recommend it.

@Oxyaena As the eejit who recently typed: " is [sic] arguments of rationalism, reason, and other Western metanarratives", you should probably be quiet. Unless, of course, you'd care to retract that particular bit of dumb hyperbole, in which case, knock yourself out.

In other news, people who actually know what they're talking about take it as given that the entire Western tradition runs right fucking through the Islamic Golden Age thanks to its preservation and translation of the ancient classical texts, and its significant innovations in maths and the natural sciences. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 00:09, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

This article actually is a pretty good run-through of Islam's decline from a scientific and rational perspective. In a nutshell, at a time when the Christian West was reeling from the collapse of the Roman empire and regressing, Islam was busy translating ancient Greek text, which inspired a five century long "Golden Age" where from a scientific progress perspective they were outpacing the West. Unfortunately, various anti-rationalism, fundamentalist schools and leaders of Islam emerged in the 11th to 12th century, and came to dominate Islamic thought. Thus the spirit of inquiry was snuffed out. They have not recovered from that since.
It is worth also knowing that other nations were engaged in their own technological progress (an obvious example is that China from roughly the Han dynasty onward invented many a thing). In fact, Western civilization hasn't really been an over-dominant force in the world until the 19th century (a phenomenon known as the Great DivergenceWikipedia). That's not a long time, to be honest. There is no reason why reason and rationality have to be a Western concept (because it isn't, and Western culture's two century dominance doesn't make it such). In fact, it is entirely possible given the large amount of anti-intellectual, authoritarian, and fundamentalist movements in the United States (with less religious but equally sectarian and authoritarian-oriented movements also present in many European nations) to envision scenarios where Western civilization scientifically relapses long-term, just like Islam did post-Golden Age. (talk) 01:23, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Hmm. I'm not sure that article does a particularly good job of explaining the decline. The giveaway is the bit where it states "The most significant factor was physical and geopolitical", devotes another ~50 words to the subject, and then launches off into a further ~4000 words on What's Wrong With Islam. There's plenty of food for thought in those ~4000 words if you were looking to kickstart a kind of Islamic Reformation, but much not much useful stuff if you're looking to make sense of why reactionary, fundamentalist voices suddenly became more persuasive at a given moment in history. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 02:48, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── You can't dissociate something from its historical-material conditions. This is why critical theory questions so called universal truths as rationality and other metanarratives. Oxyaena Harass 03:22, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

@Helena Bonham Carter That's not even mentioning the Indian philosophers. Much of Medieval and Roman thought had already been discovered and discussed in the Indian subcontinent hundreds of years before. It didn't have a direct influence due to the distance, but nevertheless was still developed. On Islam, I'd associate it's fall around 1700 with the weakening of the Ottoman empire. In the 16th century especially, the Ottomans, and by extension, Islam, were (rightfully) seen as a technological powerhouses, putting to use new weapons and battle tactics in warfare, and on the cutting edge of resource development and refinement, and architecture. They even developed Enlightenment-style tolerance ideals at a time when much of Europe was locked in religious conflicts. And finally, @Oxyaena, ok? How universal truths were discovered and spread influenced history, but affected neither the validity nor the content of said universal truth. Galileo's discovery of the telescope changed the pace at which Europe made advances in the fields of science and engineering, but did not change the positions of stars in the sky, or how a telescope works. IveBeenFrank (talk) 11:36, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Bernardo Kastrup[edit]

I was wondering if anyone here has heard of him or any of his topics in the past. I saw a few things he wrote in Scientific American but they seemed an awful lot like woo, much like his link in the above where he tries to break down all these concepts. In the scientific American article he tried to state how idealism is supported by recent advancements in Quantum mechanics which I am not convinced by and has a whole website dedicated to taking down materialism.Machina (talk) 20:29, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I am familiar with his work. HairlessCat (talk) 01:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Of course you are.Machina (talk) 01:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Poll about me (not mad, in fact- the opposite)[edit]

I actually find it a bit funny. Bet I ruffled someone's feathers. I wonder who though. Again I just find it funny. --Channel 48 WDEM-TV3 (talk) 23:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's one of the things that fills in the username of whoever's viewing it. Twodots (talk) 23:30, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes. that's exactly what it is. For me, it says, "What is your opinion about Spud?" Spud (talk) 00:09, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, I am a bit paranoid. --Channel 48 WDEM-TV3 (talk) 01:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
And rightly so - they are out to get you after all. Aloysius the Gaul 02:55, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Yeah. People need to stop getting mad over polls, such as *cough* *cough* (though I'm not naming names) someone we know all too well... --Goatspeed. See what I'm up toCircularREmail2.gifasoningSee what I've been messing around with 03:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, Anonymous user is such a whiny little pissant when it comes to complaining about polls. CoryUsar (talk) 03:09, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, Anonymous user's been writing long-winded rants about how Anonymous user's polls demonstrate "fucking ignorance" by describing their favorite topic in an unflattering way. --Goatspeed. See what I'm up toCircularREmail2.gifasoningSee what I've been messing around with 03:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
For the record, I was not mad. I thought the motive was that I ruffled someone's feathers. --Channel 48 WDEM-TV3 (talk) 13:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
"Unflattering ways" = loaded language and willful ignorance of and on political philosophy. Oxyaena Harass 13:26, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Oh come on, it was only one of the options in that poll; others were less critical of it, while others were just plain humorous to both supporters and critics of anarchism but for different reasons. --Goatspeed. See what I'm up toCircularREmail2.gifasoningSee what I've been messing around with 18:57, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
@CircularReasoning @CorruptUser Very funny. So funny in fact that you can go fuck yourselves with barbed wire. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:28, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
No thanks, it's still dirty from the last time you used it. CoryUsar (talk) 19:31, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Get fucked Donnie[edit]

After Michigan confirmed that Biden won the state, the US Government Services Administration has finally signed off on allowing Biden access to presidential transition resources. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 00:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Doubt that Traitor-in Chief will stop his petty fight. Either way, another nail in the coffin for this dispute. --Channel 48 WDEM-TV3 (talk) 01:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
I'll bet that BoN whose bullshit I keep having to collapse/{{DFTT}} never puts in links like that. I'd like to see him/her/them/it try and explain this one away. (But then again, people like them are so far divorced from reality at this point that they'd probably just claim it's fAyK nOoZ. --Goatspeed. See what I'm up toCircularREmail2.gifasoningSee what I've been messing around with 03:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Woot! Twodots (talk) 17:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Meme[edit] The 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 talk stalk block 05:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

@Sqrt-1 That is shit. That is absolutely fucking shit. The "What the left think I do" and the "What the right think I do" both dhow somebody happily writing. What the fuck's that meant to mean? It's not funny. It's not clever. It's not insulting. It's not anything that any RationalWiki editor would want to share. It's not something that any of our enemies would want to share. How is it even a fucking meme? I wasted some 50 seconds of my life looking at that and trying to make sense of it. It's obviously a very badly edited "Wikipedia editor" meme. and it's absolutely fucking shit! Spud (talk) 12:08, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
I didn’t make it. It’s just the first meme I found after search “RationalWiki” on Google that did not cry about the name being rational.The 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 talk stalk block 12:11, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
@Sqrt-1 If I thought you'd made it, I wouldn't have been so cruel about it. I didn't. Just like I didn't think you'd made any of those weird and stupid videos with "RationalWiki" in the titles that you posted here earlier this year. But the fact remains that it's shit. And, you know what, I'm sure a lot of our clever users could take the same text and make something much better and funnier. Spud (talk) 12:38, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
A couple notes: A) Only one image (not this one) in this person's gallery got over 1K views, so this is of 0 importance; B) This was posted in 2017, along with a whole bunch of other "edgey" anti-left type memes and a bunch of gamer memes (perhaps showing what we all knew, how Gamergate fueled the alt-right); C) The last image posted in 2018 (under the title "bigot") is an anti-Donald Trump joke. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Maybe this person just was going through an edgelord phase. (talk) 15:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Petition to replace the blank white canvas of the saloon bar header with this...[edit]

Header.jpgThe 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 talk stalk block 06:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

@Sqrt-1 I have a better idea: Put that on top of our "pissed at us" page. --Goatspeed. See what I'm up toCircularREmail2.gifasoningSee what I've been messing around with 06:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Having that as the background would create text over text: one or the other or both would be hard to read. Bongolian (talk) 18:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

"the most extensive and inclusive VOTER FRAUD organization in the history of American politics"[edit]

So how do you all explain Joe Biden saying "the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics"? Any takers? — Unsigned, by: 2001:8003:59DB:4100:8D00:573:1E21:6F90 / talk

BoN, I don't know if you will read this in full, but I'll write it here nonetheless, since I have a day off work... Are you feeling fine? No no, don't roll your eyes at your screen, I'm not being snarky. It's rare that a day goes by when you don't come along to post something here in the Saloon Bar. Why? Out of all the things you could be doing, like reading a book, playing a game, watching a movie or going for a run, why in the name of God do you feel the need to sit down, find some random link and post it here? It just seems... boring to me. The act is not visually engaging. It doesn't make a pleasant sound when you hit that "save" button. Nobody here ACTUALLY cares. Oh, some of my mates will look and roll their eyes, but of the dozens of people who will see your material 99.9% won't even stop for a second to glance at your stuff.
Now you are thinking to yourself: "But, but I made you guys ANGRY! Isn't that fun?!" Well, nobody is angry. We just feel mildly sad... "AHA! So I did trigger you snowflakes!" No my friend, we don't feel sad because we were "destroyed" by your logic and irrefutable high quality sources. We feel sad because every time you post here we are reminded that there is someone out there in this world who is feeling alone and angry and that there is nothing we can do to help them. EVERY TIME I see one of your posts I feel like I have let you down stranger, because maybe there was something that I could have done to help you. Something to cheer you up in your boredom or your sadness; something to alleviate the crushing sense of loneliness and despair you are feeling every time you sit down in front of your computer to troll others. I look out my window and see the people right now, smoking with their friends, kissing their girlfriends, walking their dogs, taking their kids to school, and I know that you aren't one of those people pal, I know you aren't. Because if you did have friends who wanted to be near you, or a person who loved you, children you needed to care of or just someplace fun to be, then the idea of trolling others on a wiki nobody reads wouldn't have been anywhere near the top of your to do list.
I'm sorry I couldn't help you. I'm so sorry. And I know that you probably hate me right now; but I don't hate you back. Maybe at another time I would, but I just can't find it in me right now.
Good luck. - Rairyu75 (Talk) 11:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
You should make a template out of that...The 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 talk stalk block 12:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, totally. Twodots (talk) 17:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

But also here you go - Aloysius the Gaul 21:38, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

"78 year old man with a history of misspeaking, misspeaks". There I fixed the headline.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 00:09, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, imagine being surprised when Joe Biden messes words up. I’m no Biden-hater, but even I know that he usually can’t speak right to save his life. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 00:42, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Also - despite Joe telling you where to go, the might of the US investigative system and the GOP election-overthrowing machinery can't find any fucking evidence of voter fraud at all!! Except this.... and this..... and these, and there's this from a while ago, and this.... building a picture here..... and it ain't Biden voters in it much! Aloysius the Gaul 02:20, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

How to get a random article that is included in 2 categories?[edit]

HelpThe 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 talk stalk block 12:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)


Anonymous user is truly disappointing. HairlessCat (talk) 13:13, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Like I said, I was not mad about the poll. I thought there was a different motive. Ugh. --Channel 48 WDEM-TV3 (talk) 13:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
I prefer a goat. Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 13:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm one of the people who voted for "That user is terrible and should feel terrible". Because I am and I should. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
I personally think that RationalZombie94 deserves another chance. Perhaps we can start another poll and find out that there is nothing but love here for him. What d'yall say? ShabiDOO 14:11, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
What the fuck is going on with these polls.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 00:13, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
I made a poll earlier that conclusively proved that the polls on this site are a HOAX Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 00:39, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Something stupid, I`m sure. Oxyaena Harass 03:58, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Name for a specific concept[edit]

Something I have been calling 'post-hoc reasoning' but I do not think that is the correct terminology. The scenario is this:

There is a casual debate going on, one of the participants for whatever reason interprets a statement addressed to them as being 'antagonistic' despite that not being what actually happened nor was intended. They take offence at it and respond with an accusation as such, the person who made the initial statement defends themselves. As more people see this exchange they, for some reason, begin to side with the person who took offence despite that not being what happened and the defence offered.

The term I am looking for describes the phenomenon of viewers reasoning after the fact of the accusation where no one would have mentioned it had the accusation not been made in the first place. They assume that the one who claims offence was made is automatically correct about the other person intentionally being 'antagonistic' and take their side (usually followed by directed insults and the like) merely because they made the accusation in the first place rather than because it has been shown to be true.

This had been bugging me for a while now so hopefully I have made myself clear and the question can be answered.OldWolf2642 (talk) 15:59, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't know if there is any name for the bystanders' actions in this scenario, but I believe invoking this response is referred to as the "wounded gazelle gambit". Might be something in that vein? (talk) 15:19, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanksgiving is upon us![edit]

For those of you who live in the US, Thanksgiving is coming. Knowing COVID is an issue, will you follow public health guidelines and care about your fellow man or be an inconsiderate asshole, spread the virus while screaming "muh freewdom and scamdemic"? --Channel 48 WDEM-TV3 (talk) 16:48, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

The time to kill dozens without being aware of it, time it is. (talk) 17:24, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
The public's answer:
Hospitals are going to be overwhelmed. Bongolian (talk) 18:35, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
So will the turkeys view Thanksgiving 2020 as "Revenge Day"?
It's interesting, the total deaths/day are still less than in April, but that's because we are better at treating COVID now. The estimate is that COVID now only kills as few as .15% of the infected, which is about the same as the season flu... assuming they get proper medical care. And if everyone gets sick at the same time, they won't get proper care, and COVID's death rate will skyrocket into the whole percentage point territory. It's important that we control the spread as much as we can, especially considering that we know a vaccine is just a few weeks away. CoryUsar (talk) 19:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Getting a bunch of people sick with a horrible disease is pretty consistent with the Thanksgiving occasion, I'd say. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 19:54, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
And make sure to hoard buy toilet paper before the Karens grab all of it. --Goatspeed. See what I'm up toCircularREmail2.gifasoningSee what I've been messing around with 21:11, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
That is why Americans really should start using bidets. CoryUsar (talk) 22:26, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Many people have said before that they hate their relatives so maybe they want go give their family the virus. There are always jokes about people hating their relatives. Fun fact: I could pull a conspiracy out of my ass pertaining to this. It would be pretty easy. Hell, my brother could be the one to sell people the conspiracy. He could sell sand to someone in the desert. --Channel 48 WDEM-TV3 (talk) 22:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Your brother sounds cool. Twodots (talk) 23:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Not particularly impressive, considering that Australia already figured out how to sell sand to Saudi Arabia.CoryUsar (talk) 01:00, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

2020 mod elections[edit]

If you haven’t seen, the polls are now open for the 2020 mod elections. Polls will close on 1 December. Can confirm that poll watchers will be given fair access to Judge Dredd and Cosmikdebris once counting starts. —RWRW (talk) 20:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

MARWIGA hat.png Vote CircularReasoning to Make RationalWiki Great Again! (Also, you might wanna consider voting for Sirius and RWRW as well.) See my propaganda here. --Goatspeed. See what I'm up toCircularREmail2.gifasoningSee what I've been messing around with 21:08, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
I'd vote for you if I could, dude. You seem nice, and have made lots of helpful edits. Good on ya. Twodots (talk) 21:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
This will be the greatest election steal in RationalWiki history. Sirius (dog star / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png) 21:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. They wouldn't even put me on the ballot. We all know I'd win a popular vote bigly. Very bigly. Twodots (talk) 21:23, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Bongolian for mod 2020! You have my vote! --Channel 48 WDEM-TV3 (talk) 01:19, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
The campaigns were still better than the first Trump-Biden debate. We never interrupted each other, the digging-up-of-dirt was all in good faith, and there was no "you just lost the left" or "will you shut up, man". --Goatspeed. See what I'm up toCircularREmail2.gifasoningSee what I've been messing around with 19:00, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Stickhopper or whatever his name is[edit]

GameStop / PS5 F****ery[edit]

Further proof that capitalism is bullshit. Sony has made it virtually impossible to buy, online portals aren't secure from bots, and resellers are scalping consoles 100% above MSRP minimum. I bought one on StockX, at 50% above MSRP, then the seller backed out cause the price spiked. I luckily picked one up from GameStop, but it was only in a bundle with another controller (which I already bought), a media remote (which I won't use), two games I'm not really interested in playing and a PS Plus membership I don't need. They just sent me a receipt breaking down the price for each part of the bundle, everything is priced 5% above MSRP. Why do we tolerate practices like this? (I'm not interested in "hur dur how about you don't buy it", I play video games.)-RipCityLiberal (talk) 00:58, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

That's why I'm part of the PC Master Race. CoryUsar (talk) 01:04, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
No seriously, us PC guys have been warning everyone else about this for years. Your Playstation is NOT a computer, it's an appliance. You have no say as to which components go into it, you have no say as to what exclusitivity deals Nintendo and Sony can make regarding what game gets what port. Nothing. Want Halo on PS5? You are SOL. Want Mario on Xbox? Nope. But if you play on a computer, Dell can't sign an exclusive agreement with Bethesda so that Elder Scrolls 6 will only come out for Dell computers; if it runs on a Dell it will run on an HP or IBM computer. This is part of the reason I sneer at Apple and their fanbois; they are just as much part of the problem as the people playing on consoles. CoryUsar (talk) 01:14, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Good post! PC for the win. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
My roommate managed to get a diskless version. Pretty sure he must have pre-ordered back in 1993 though. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 01:37, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
PC? No! I’ve had enough of liberal Hollywood values Political Correctness! Merry Christmas, snowflakes! Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 03:02, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Capitalism is bullshit?? I think not - this is capitalism exactly as it is supposed to be - price gouging whenever you can is what it is all about. They say there's a sucker born every minute.... when's your birthday?? Aloysius the Gaul 02:24, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
It's a failure of capitalism because the price gouging isn't being done by SONY itself. The people buying up the PS5's for $500 and reselling for $1000 have done absolutely nothing to increase the supply of PS5's. That's profit that should be going to the manufacturer, to encourage the manufacturer to, well, manufacture. It's basically the same as scalping; people buy up all the tickets, then resell at higher price, a price the artist should've been charging from the start. Money that would go towards encouraging new shows or improved venues instead goes into the pockets of parasites, of rent seekers. CoryUsar (talk) 03:13, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
@CorruptUser It is scalping, to be technical. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:16, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
All capitalism consists of is rent-seeking. Oxyaena Harass 04:02, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm surprised Gamestop is still in business. Nonstopmaximum (talk) 14:08, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
If you notice, they don't have PC games. Everyone has internet, so Master Race folk get our games through Steam, GOG, or any of the myriad of wannabe streaming sites. Consoles still require physical media, and that means either going to a store or purchasing it through an online retailer and waiting a few days and praying no one steals your package. Seriously, package thieves are one of the biggest reasons that physical stores still exist.
But anyway, it's interesting to look at the price of your $60 game. The store needs to make money too, so $30 goes to the store, which is actually a lot less than you'd expect given that stores typically have much higher markups on everything else. So now the game designer gets $30, BUT! They have to share that with the console for licensing; Nintendo sells consoles at cost, but SONY and MS sell theirs at a loss, but they all get money from every game sold. It's around $7 per game. Bought 20 games for your PS? SONY got $140, and didn't incur any manufacturing and shipping expenses. Only bought 1 game for your PS? It's possible SONY lost money from you. This also is an incentive for the consoles to ensure there isn't too much backwards compatibility, as every time you have to buy a whole new library of games, Nintendo gets more money. Any game you ran through Steam 15 years ago will still run on a computer today, and if you really want your old DOS games to work there's DosBox and a couple sites dedicated to giving away all those old DOS games for free. Master of Magic is STILL the best turn-based magical empire game ever; you think a Life Warlord with Champion Paladins is overpowered? Just feel the wrath of my fleet of Invisible Hasted Flying Warships!
Your online Steam games? Steam takes around 25% of the revenue instead of 50%, so the $60 can now be $45 and the developer gets the same revenue. Now add in that the developer doesn't need licensing fees, and the price drops to $30 for the developer to get the same as the store. Now add in there's virtually no manufacturing costs, no shipping, little marketing beyond Steam adverts (and Steam has every incentive to advertise on your behalf!), and, well, now you know why all the games are constantly on sale for 50% off. It's a bit of a marketing ploy, of course, "get this $60 game for just $30 now while you can even though we'd always price it at $30!", but it's still cheaper than the brick and mortar. Plus, everything is available online, including games from 20 years ago if you are interested, instead of the 100 or so titles that Gamestop decided to stock.
Now, there are shennanigans of course. There isn't quite the Freemium bullshit, but Paradox and Maxis are notorious for DLC. If you want everything from The Sims 4, all the stuff that had already been programmed and added in previous titles, that'll cost, oh... $800. Screw that. Paradox is a bit better, games like Stellaris really are fully fleshed out, and all content (so far) would "only" cost about $200, but everything goes on sale for 50% off at some point and the base game is always on sale for 75% off, so if you are patient it's more like $90, but those expansions/DLC really can be worth it depending on what you want to play. Plus, Paradox makes such realistic games that actual cities use Cities: Skylines as a way to figure out how to make their road systems better. CoryUsar (talk) 17:11, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
i turn on my xbox and start up a game, and it works right away out of the box. no arsing around with drivers and sound cards and graphic cards, and i can sit on my sofa with a massive tv to view everything. no faffing around with tweaking this or adjusting that. its meant to be fun not a fuckin chore. fuck all that shit. i play video games but im not a gamer - i have a sex life. and no you dont require physical media with consoles, not for a year or two at least. and keyboard and mouse is just complete wank as a control method for anything other than strategy. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:16, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Parler hacked[edit]

I don't know where this fits in WIGO-land (not really a blog or clog), so I'll plop it here. Parler, part of the alt-right social media ecosystem, was hacked today. Reportedly names, SSNs and driver's license numbers were stolen.[6] In other Parler news, the site was reportedly censoring (gasp!) any posts that included the stupid/funny hashtag '#WriteInTrumpforGA'.[7] Bongolian (talk) 02:22, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

How did Parler have SSNs and DLs? Don’t tell me the users were moronic enough to hand that info over. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 03:00, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Parler demanded SSNs to get a checkmark. Revolverman (talk) 03:26, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
@DuceMoosolini Parler requires a phone number to register, so it's possible they thought their info was safe. On the other hand, you can beat that system, it'll just set you back a couple hundred dollars. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:09, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
That's a pity. Things might get a bit embarrassing for some of the more enthusiastic members of Meinspace. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 03:21, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm just waiting for Sargon's Parler DMs to get leaked so the last of his credibility can die for good. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:31, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Watching this spectacle, it's hard to figure the far right (or the far left) could organize in this modern world without exposing themselves. So the hard-right media alternatives lose members because they can't protect their members' privacy. Where do they go after that? Does exposure matter after a point? Artificius (talk) 03:47, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Ah, yes, radical centrism. "Both sides bad hur dur." Oxyaena Harass 04:05, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
I would personally wait for better sources on this one, Kevin Abosch is a conceptual artist best known for (according to Kevin Abosch) selling a photograph of a potato for $1 million. (There's an awful whiff of self-promotion with his art stunts.) He's also done a few crypto stunts just to add to the "kinda not reliable" factor. (talk) 04:21, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
(I'll add that the archive link in the Hacker News is from 17 July 2020.) (talk) 04:27, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
@Oxyaena Someone didn't read someone's else's post in its entirety... ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 04:30, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Goddamnit Oxy, STFU. I'm asking whether the radicals can hide, not whether they're ideologically pure. Artificius (talk) 05:07, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Honestly, the far-left isn't a concern at all. They have no power and all they do is pollute social media with their larping. The far-right is far more dangerous. As it stands, you shouldn't really be concerned with the far-left (well except if you live in China, the far-left there is quite dangerous with the Communist Party there). — Godless Raven SDAPOe logo.svg talkstalkwalkbalk 🌹 Flag of Europe.svg 13:43, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
@Artificius To answer your question (since apparently Oxy and Raven weren't able to understand it) I don't think niche social media is viable these days. Maybe things like Discord servers or subreddits, but never anything as dedicated as Parler or Twitter. I think, to be honest, that the days when groups could organize without being in the open is coming to a close, if it hasn't ended already. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:53, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


I've yet to receive an answer on why progress is measured by how Westernized a society is. Oxyaena Harass 04:10, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

That wasn't the premise you put forward. Also, I think these sorts of discussions ought to be moved to debate-space in the future. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 04:23, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Your alternative? Enlightenment values aren't specifically Western, any more than are the laws of time and motion, but for various historical reasons they came up there first. They aren't the end-all on philosophy (I rather enjoy reading Zhuangzi, especially since I know better than to fall into the trap of classifying him as a Daoist, and the Mingjia philosophy of Huizi), but they were the first to get it right; the only options after that are to reinvent the wheel or cite who came before you. Given how the Curse of Knowledge works, you can't unring a bell so you'll naturally build off what you've already heard. And there are plenty of ways to express humanity; hell, as an example, I wish the headgear of the Yi people would catch on outside their culture, I'd happily don their getup over formal Western hats. From one ASD sufferer to another, I know how easy it is to want to fight back against a world that won't understand you. To cite a certain Canadian trio, as I often do, you can only grow the way the wind blows or be broken down blow by blow; easier for me to say, since I've been fortunate enough to come from a famil that cares about me (which a disturbing number of people denigrate me for, because of... something) and make something of a living for myself, but since my degree is in history I can't think of many (any?) times in history or place today I'd be any more able to function in the world; is there a place/time you think you'd be better off in? (Genuine question, and lay it out in as much detail as you see fit) Would be fine with this being moved to debate space. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:45, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
@The Blade of the Northern Lights I mean, to be technical, a number of (not all) enlightenment ideas were proposed by earlier scholars in Africa and the Middle East. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 05:24, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes, obviously it wasn't only Western Europeans who came up with each individual idea. I studied Ibn Sina and Ibn Rushd (better known as Avicenna and Averroes in English) enough to know their contributions to thought in medicine and jurist philosophy, respectively; I once sided with Ibn Rushd over Rumi, since even though I appreciate the cultural influence of Sufis there's a lot of PIDOOMA there. They got a lot of the right ideas, both from the ancient Greeks and Romans as well as finding many of their own, but none of them ever put it all together. Indeed, the next big Muslim scholar after Ibn Rushd was Ibn Taymiyya, who produced fatwas legendary for their utter rantiness (while they made some sense at the time of writing, when Mongol armies took over and leaders claimed to be converts, today they mostly serve fundamentalist nut jobs who selectively quote them to justify beheading people on the streets). There's no Arabic equivalent to Jeremy Bentham or John Stuart Mill (though one Bentham, anyway, was probably all the world could handle, waiting to see if genetic tests can find if he had The Big A!), and while that doesn't mean all good values emanate from Western Europe it does mean that people living in Western Europe were the first to make it into a coherent school of thought. (Nonetheless, I'd rather read the Zhuangzi over Mill any day!) The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:44, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
"Progress" is usually used to assert the transition from an imperfect state to a quantitatively better state. Since conservative cultures tend to remain the same over long periods of time, it should surprise no one that non-western cultures tend to make progress very slowly, if at all. This is because progress in general, in culture, in sustainability, in material acquirement, is driven by progress in technology. Technology matters, even in the arts: e.g., the piano is hard to beat as an orchestral instrument. In the west we have a lot of technology, and often find it pulling the rug out from under any semblance of culture to which one might become accustomed. Some find themselves so confused by the rapid pace of cultural transformation in the west, they start to look longingly at the more slowly paced societies elsewhere in the world. That's fine man. It reminds me of the times I could go on vacation to such places. Ariel31459 (talk) 05:51, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
So..... "West is best," apparently. Most of philosophy is PIDOOMA, including this wiki's sacred liberal/rationalist philosophy. There comes a point where the only honest position to take is that it's all bullshit to begin with. Oxyaena Harass 06:10, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
@The Blade of the Northern Lights To be quite honest, I'd rather live as far away from the rest of humanity as possible without being coerced to abide by the law of the state. I just want to be free, I don't care about all that shit related to quality of life and such. I`m an individualist anarchist, I want what I want and that's all there is to it. What I want is to find an empty plot of land and build a homestead there. The state's defense of private property (even on unused land) is what's preventing me from doing so. If no one's using that land, it shouldn't be there's. That's just wasteful. Usufruct is a much more just conception of property than what we have now. Occupancy and use. This would also prevent parasitism like absentee landlordism, since you can't collect economic rent on land you don't occupy and use yourself. Oxyaena Harass 06:18, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
I once thought like that, but then I stumbled across Genie (I wrote almost all of that article). That made me realize the extent to which isolation can completely destroy a human. If anything, since I cut a fairly imposing physical figure I'd stand to gain from an anarchist world, but the knife could just as easily be piercing my heart as well. If I was an orangutan (no, not that orangutan) I'd be in heaven, but that's just not how the human brain is wired. Under almost any other circumstances, I'd be the man on the corner living out another day for you and me in paradise (references well beyond my years, but I liberated an Abacab vinyl from a thrift store). I wish it weren't so, and goodness knows the people who call me friends have given me enough reason these last years to want to become the 21st Century Leatherman (I've even visited a few of his caves!), but I can't pretend it's made me a better person. Fighting basic biology will only work against you, and by the same token if you're having a hard time finding someone to call a friend don't be so hard on yourself; you're just playing the hand you have. No culture I know of would be easier on me, anyway, and indeed a lot more would be far harder on me. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 07:10, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
"Most of philosophy is PIDOOMA, including this wiki's sacred liberal/rationalist philosophy. There comes a point where the only honest position to take is that it's all bullshit to begin with." Err... No. @Ariel31459 It's a bit more complicated than that. Firstly, even within the "West" there are countries that are so Conservative or Right-wing that they refuse to progress. Cough the United States cough. Secondly, these attitudes and alignments haven't been constant, historically speaking. Rather they ebb and flow based off of internal and external attitudes, politics, and group decisions. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:08, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Human rights originated in modern Iran, with Cyrus the Great. Your opposition to secular humanism isn't because it's western, it's because you are trying to be edgy trash. — Godless Raven SDAPOe logo.svg talkstalkwalkbalk 🌹 Flag of Europe.svg 13:41, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Human rights is a modern, Enlightenment innovation. Do not place modern constructs onto ancient cultures who had no conception of them. The Cyrus Cylinder is hardly any different from the normal statements kings of that era put out when gaining power. Here's a video for your stupid ass: [8]. Oxyaena Harass 14:26, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
By the logic that Human Rights are a "Western" thing, should we not feel bad about abusing the rights of non-Western peoples because, hey, they didn't have those rights to begin with? What kind of nonsense is this? CoryUsar (talk) 17:59, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
"Human Rights" refers to a sheaf of ideas that has evolved over time. We are forced to view them from a western prospect. If we were ancient Greeks, we would all know what our rights were. Even today, the constituents have been modified over very short periods of time. The end is the just flourishing of our society. It is the means to that end that can lead to ambiguous circumstances, when certain rights conflict. This austere reality is often overlooked, or waved away as unimportant. One might as well be debating the meaning of "human nature."Ariel31459 (talk) 20:44, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps a silly idea[edit]

Hey, so I’ve been thinking about the fact that it can be pretty overwhelming like existing in the world and whatnot right now. It’s a big part of the reason I personally have been consistently leaving and then sometimes returning. But I just had a thought. What if it was possible to like, keep/attract more good-faith users here by like. Making a WIGO specifically dedicated to positive/hopeful/non-stressful news stories? Or hell, even if it doesn’t keep/attract users, maybe it would just be nice for the sake of it anyway. In fairness, I haven’t really thought the idea through in detail, and I know it probably sounds like a lot of effort for something that might not even be that useful, and there might be a bunch of complications with it or whatever — it’s not something I’d push for if other people thought it was silly. I just thought I’d start a discussion about it, bc I think it would be nice and maybe other people also think so. It can be pretty hard to find places that collect a consistent stream of info that says, hey, you know, good stuff happens too, and I think it might be helpful for a lot of people — I know it would definitely help me at least. So yeah what do you’ll think? (Also, this also might seem silly, but I would just like to kindly request that, bc I’m feeling a bit sensitive right now, that if you don’t think this is a good idea or anything, please do make an effort to say that in a nice way. I mean you’re all usually pretty nice to me and whatnot, but I am just feeling particularly easy to upset right now, so I just thought I’d communicate that clearly to ask for extra caution. Thank you a whole bunch anyway!) A S E L A ཊལྐ 11:48, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

@Asela I appreciate and even laud what you're trying to do. But I'm not convinced it's a good idea. That's because the same stories would appear in a good news only WIGO as in WIBO World, WIGO COVID and WIGO Elections. Either that or you make those other WIGOs bad news only. And that would really make life look shite. Still, if you want to give it a go, I suggest you start it in your user space. Allow other people to edit it, of course. However, it will also have to be protected so that only autopatrolled users van edit it, Otherwise you'll get creationists, incels, meo-Nazis and woomweisters adding their version of "good news" to it. And you don't want that. Spud (talk) 13:14, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
@Spud First up, I just want to say thank you so much for your kind words and your advice! I think that’s a very good point that I hadn’t really considered. I think the userspace idea definitely sounds good though for sure! Would it work to just copy the templates/formatting etc from one of the existing WIGO pages? If not, would you be able to help me set it up at some point? I’m not very good at wiki-code! Additionally, do you know any ways that I could make it so people don’t have to visit my userspace to see it? Just bc I’m often not particularly active or prominent and I think it would be nice to get as much participation as possible! Anyway, many thanks for hearing me out and for your help/advice! A S E L A ཊལྐ 13:35, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
@Asela Sorry. I don't know anything about wiki coding either. Hopefully, somebody will see this thread who can help. I also suggest that you post messages on the existing WIGO talk pages asking for help there. I think a way of making that WIGO in your user space a bit more visible would be to have a note at the top of the WIGO World, COVID and election pages. Not a proper WIGO portal link with the nice round logo, you understand. Not yet. Just a link that says something like, "You may also like to visit our Good News Only WIGO." Good luck! I'll probably contribute to it, if it's created. Spud (talk) 14:04, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Oh yeah, that sounds really good thanks a bunch!!! A S E L A ཊལྐ 14:38, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
shit tonne of light and frothy and adorable cat videos on youtube if you need to destress from the existential dread caused by a deluge of doom and gloom. ive found myself watching vids uploaded by a guy with a pet otter (how the fuck is he allowed an otter? i'm not allowed an otter, why is he? theres another uploader with a pet meercat - how the fuck is he allowed a pet meercat?) its dumb, but so adorable with its little squeaks and its little hands and its wrestling with the guys pet cat.
you dont need to read every article on every story. scan the headlines. you usually keep abreast of whats going without getting bogged with and obsessing over too much detail. dig deeper if its something of interest to you. the 24 hour news cycle insists on live updates but the minutae often doesnt really add a great deal to our understanding of events, often a summary after the dust has settled gives a clearer picture than obsessing over every little detail as it happens. you can go a bit mental like that, especially when we as individuals often wont be able to effect events too much in the short term - if we could we would instead of overwhelmed by flow of news in a kind of paralysis. if immediate action on your part is not required, step back and live your life. just check back once in a while to keep informed - read the news in the morning for example, not ever 5 mins or constantly refreshing a live stream. recommend putting the iphone down AMassiveGay (talk) 15:18, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Thank you that’s all really good advice!! A S E L A ཊལྐ 16:03, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
@Asela Since it appears from your sig that you're of Indian descent, maybe you could help me translate some of our cover-story articles into Hindi? It could potentially break down a signficant language and cultural barrier. I've already started a draft translation of Evidence against a recent creation in my userspace. --Goatspeed. See what I'm up toCircularREmail2.gifasoningSee what I've been messing around with 18:49, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Oh shit, sorry no I’m not actually of Indian descent, mostly italian ancestry lmao. I just find writing systems really interesting, and a lot of abugidas are my favourite scripts. I know like maybe two or three words of Hindi and Gujarati from a friend, but I’m nowhere near good enough to even feel confident saying more than a couple of sentences. Sorry! A S E L A ཊལྐ 20:10, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

So I’ve gone and tried to make this[edit]

Here we go, in my own userspace: What Nice Things Are Going On?. Still very rough, and anyone who is willing to help out with formatting, coding, archives, icons, etc. would be HIGHLY appreciated! Otherwise please feel free to start adding things thank you! A S E L A ཊལྐ 16:03, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Improvements to the RationalWiki:Contents page...[edit]

As it stands right now, the page is one of the first things a newcomer will click on from the mainpage, yet it is grossly outdated, providing a link to conservapedia, and listing very few of the very great content of this site. The main page link to the page states: “See all portals”, while the page has only 10 sections, making the site look very small and insignificant to newcomers.

I am trying to change this.

I have taken heavy inspiration from the Portal page.


  • Looks cool
  • Overwhelms newcomers with RW content.
  • ...uh... um... yes! Got it! It makes it easier to navigate the wiki!
  • Ok the above reasons should be fine.


  • Loses... nostalgia...?
  • Holy Shit I am bad at this. Just gimme some fucking advice and help me with this project already!

I am looking for some advice and anyone else can edit there, alright? Please. The 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 talk stalk block 12:13, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Looks good, but you might want to take the Table of Contents out of there. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 20:47, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
The revision looks good to me. One problem that I have with both pages though is that there's no indication that these are examples, which could mislead someone into thinking that that's all there is. A minor problem with the revision is that there are two 'Goat' links under the Goat header. Bongolian (talk) 21:07, 25 November 2020 (UTC)